










































( 



■ I 


I 


V 


t 

I 


if 


c 

F 

I 




I 

•1 













I 




I 


4; 



■.'f' • 


t 

. \ 



* I 


) ■ 

i 



4 1 




I 


I. . 




6 



• ♦ . 


If 


I i 




V 


•fk"' • 

4 




s 


{ 



I I 




I 


\ 



t 

♦ 


" I 





I 


.‘ 2 » 


* ■ I 

4 







i 



V 


t 


t 


I 





y 






































































































































- >.•. 

' . - '■ ptf•• ?/rr-‘■'A-'**, ’* ■; ^ ■■'-.•• .* 


^11 ^ ' *^^T-.: ■ '^T 

Nr i’* <T ♦ 


’ ■ 7 ' - : i 


'■ ’- ■^i') ’ 7 >-V V.' ^ . r 

....' ..Vvi' :'J 

l' •fT" i nf ill ■.■■! ' 



■' 01 ^ 



♦ .r • 

-■*- i 4 te 7 l r;-^ 



f »• 


;.:i;r-: ::ym 


'^r ' :■■ ^ \ 



* 4 ,• *r,x 




' f J 'a / 

■■■■ rf i <1 i—t, 





•/ ♦ • . . I • ■ ^ ^ 

^■•.. V. . *^''-j!. ‘'V. .* > ; •♦f.r’ / / “/• 

■*■ ■■ ' ■ I ■ i -L 4 . »»VTk.T ■■ . ^ I 44 - ^ 


-► V ^ 


f i-,'L 

•'' 4 *'’ r ^ '- . P' 


‘ >1 


■ » >i^ 

;'i 


r -• 




7 ■ 




• ■\. * V 

»■> I ; ■ 


:fl 



i'ijr 


:■ 


■' y-y\ 


a 


•\ '» » 




# "7 w ^ 

_ »-! ■■ ' ^ ♦ * ' •’'•■ A"'.* 

. r**‘,’* ■ 1 j * 


>J‘ 




. *. ■ . 


t . 


L' ’’ I - , * '•fl 

7*. ^*'1 . 



» ‘'v-* - 


\v--v: A.* :*';?■• 

I ■ —HIM III Pl»Hii»l»l|li|, I 


' ■ A-' . '-V- 


I r 


f , 

i^ii II » ■ y»i 



^'' •'iA-V^-’."f^ 

'-.'>• 4 .*' ■■'^/, '' ■ 

“ - ■ .ii 4 - 









$i 


i i 




> *. . V 


• t ' " ^•'y^’* — " I ^ 1,1 ■ ikHi . . 

■III.* m l y h a mu J 11^ ii ^i h ■ «■■!■■ i>ii ^ i ii ■ i 

A-# '' 7 ^ ■ ■ '/v ;* /'^'/'• • '*^. ‘ ‘ 


., ►* ^ 





T 


•r:. 


■ Ir ,■ 


;. - * * 





Vi ,7 


* ‘‘ 


u 


•.«, . ft 








■'' " ■ '’‘' ■ j ;- ‘‘ . * ^ ' '^‘|4 ^ ’-■! ‘ 

• ^ . ■- . Aw* "'M. 

wfc4»i,^ III I . <»wiii i > > I I <!■>—3i»Mii^ i iiWi 1. hw* ^ 

r'V'".,. '•■ ' 


' ’a, j 



.^tm 



* r ‘ ^ 


v<- 





‘ , '» 

■ . 1 " W' • 

■ « . . ' H 


*'•* ,-■. * ' * n '’ . •> 1 * ’ >* 

■ ,->i rnm^m m mL m, iii»^ .. ; ■■ . i — ■ i ■ ■ H l » ■ i P » >^v4i 

• . 4 . ' /': ■ ', X' "> -j ’ 

> 7., a . i-■'. ...It. '. •.'?» ,';.K‘ •u'j7v''j 

^ |^**« *■ * «■ •» I*»I 1^ I a^ii ** ■ ■ *1 I I* *1^ I >i » .«i I Iiai n ^ f i I «I m -i I-I. iw fci y>i- wWii I ■■<■^ ■ ■1 I 1 »| <iiiMi< fc^ ■I^^^II* 


lfi»«li 


i’ V 








H - 



1 .. ^^r... , ^aSSi Lr/Al ..-.^-. 




rr^ 




•Zy T^;, 1 ^. fi 

|l^l■■llll»a^ li i>— l in>wi^» «Mi^ 


fi. :. , -V'^ ■ * 

—■ —^ ^ —'—— —.—— — — — — - 








... -.- 

mi0^ —i*i*<»i>i^»«p.y^4hiUi>»i^ i X w I • ' I MW m r m$a «« 

• .'f'. -' ...A. 


^;if ;* , 




' , tt .v*-’ .' ‘A'? 

wSb'..,’ 




0 • ■ 


'■ • • ■ ' • C-. 






»y. | ii 


C. il 












































































































































































^ ^ fV^TT ‘ ^ ^ _r; *_ 

' T •■ ■ ■ ;" r;}. • : -‘:r ^ T ^ '-r-^rr^f^ 

Pv#. : I •. k iiSt?'' ‘ V V’l □ 

SV■ -^t:, • •--x ,,^,. 





■ ii -r , ljA >, ii. f *piUpl * II ■ Tg i ■■ ' ' li T > ij iii ^" ;f ' 

._-■ .. ' i -ri . ' j ... (V, . ’ ,,, T^tfr . - . •,: , jiK^i-^ 4 , 4 ^. p -^^ '- '.I 

■^ '. ♦•>• V 7 x*'*- p#ySf ' 

— -•; I iwm m I»^ ■ III —* 111 •mm « —■ — — 


ta V: £> ■-^ — 



} '"P I • 1 » ^ T • ^ ^ - I 'jr ' ■ ' • ^ ^ I ■« ^ ■ T ■ I m m y 

t^T.f'lie ■ ■- 'Jr'' : ' ■“ ’ > V:^.-fi.itiBi 





‘ii 










































































































































































































y ^v 

I , ,, 



/.A«ii..li.i.‘ito- •. >-.»«i»B ii ^ . fa..,, , 





































































































































































'-.'i 





fBJlVt < ■■! , '.A 

'■^7 ■• v' v ‘ • ■' 

' i‘ ^ ,l*.l 


' V'v > 






' r' * .' ■/v.vi' r'■ ' ■, V S'* -<:•£, ■ ' 

m f‘ w m i nH | | lAji i li pb i gp »»* >«f wi . » i » iii ■■, »»<»■ 


JkF;}'.-■ r: ‘^- 




C # 


T*^iv. ■ 1 A.':; ■ ‘-'‘Vvj:'' ■. v ‘ ■ 

MmP-■ _ Mm-: ■'' ^ 






Hp' -'Jfc:''*'.- s>v. 


‘, 410 

" 1 ^*--Twf' ' 


^ \ , AVMILP ,1 

' • ■ 1)4' ‘•y’ v V' >’ ' ; ' '^ 

V . .v.. 


?.:• ’ 'U' -.<»- , 


I'f?; ■ ' '. V' "■■ ' ■ ' .,■•:''■<■ .• 


: -.>^» 

■4. ■ /,: . -V. •. ■• ■ r . 

H ^ I ,, 

■fc j ii 3i > • I■■I >»*l ii i ' ■'' ii ^ i ^ j ig ' 1 % 






T 







.. 3 rvv/. - - 

V"y,,lgg^r . ^ :.:f -r7 







•<> 







, .jj ^ 'if 






V.*., 


rr«^iiiiii tiniMfcr^, 



»« |i» U .i -*■ —1 *4 ■ ■ It. ^ _^ 



fe>,', I h: 






"9^7' 






I* 







































































































































S' 

*.*. * 



I’ 




f:^r 


* 1^ ""f*/ 



1/ 

vr. I''-.'*' ^ 


'iA. • « - ^ 

TQ 




• V 


*T, 


■ 9 t ^ ^ \ 


a';'i.r ' , . ■^, \ '■ ;. ■. 'mmm- ■ ■’ •«■'5 

•/ , • •• •*'^ ; ^ . » -':H -. t. 



^'’' Sl.v 'if ■ ' ' ,..i ■ V^ ' '» ‘ '.l/r'■ ■•■'* ^” . ', • i" •* 

. _ mm 













































































































































































y ) > 


'7" , 'OT-^ -',:^'7^\, 

J* ‘' * ' i 





■ ''V SkL. 




Uf 


|tovf^''v77 :: r,.'' 

!■ « ».. * ^ r .ill . ||<I, I I i m i y ii ' 1 > | II|^|»| .11 ^ ^ I i t i |l ^ ■l■l■■l 


Rl"; y ' 


i g \ II ■ 

* >'■’ I,' I 








• •V, 

' ' ■ 'iHAJ 


v;''T • .^ ■ or.. 'A-"••.•J-'.. 

!' " , V '" 'V' 



• r*’. .... .. ' . * ■•.. .-•. ■ -'. .' •' 

I ■lyw rf y 1 11 I iii<iN^*ifc»< y m I ■*■ ^ 





‘Ji IWJ^.r •J^..'.I - . 

. ' ■' : f.r',’-' , '.'■<< ',,■ 

^ ■ My i . y . ' 4i< v" i » "I 'l * k«» — ■■ »i » ' —»«-»'«•»■-' - /TT^tf i r iAi b . i ' p i» I, ' 4iii fc\ .1 ■ ^' ■ r . ,ii.u''.i 

:■' ■■■ Ik? 

>*"l^ . _ * ■*' * ■ • I ^ II i i ' II I ■»! ■ , II I ijpi f 

- ■*'. I''. **1’ ■. ■ IC < .7, - ’ 'u»i^ 


'#: 


i# 




■ 


^ f . ,■' - ■,* . ^ , ■ 0,^. 






■i,' .. 

1^—r i ii>i— n ^iyi Jhtyiw ^ 

y':- 'y''' ^4.*'- ■'. ^ ' 

( h. ■ •■ . ’Ai" ' 


.• • m imtt, 4* f m >41 #I *■» .i*.. \ iw^i ' 

.'uw • ,4 * v^. .^^ 

•i ^ '/’*%■' *1 * t ' ■ ^' *' ’' 

*r 


* “ * > ' ' ‘. *' * " ' r^"'' !»' . ' •^.'•«*'••7^ ■■ ■ 






^1 .yi*«(. ;i; ii Mi >.^4^^~..i I, ■ 11 ^ 4 ~ >i y rfi; ■^i . ’V fk r . m a * ■■n. 'x —t.-- ... 11 .,' * ^-:^ -7 -n ; 

^'V/■ -r" < . ■• x:'•■ v,;' .i^.., 










































































































4 • 






n 


.r 


» '* • ■ 

w t ' I «W 1m-L^ 



. « ‘ ♦ . ^ 


‘ v; 


“ 'I ' vr? 

' »_ 

'* 


T • »'* 







r-;,, 'V' ■ <;•- 



”>? - » 


. . ' . n ‘ 




» # 


t» * • 



’■ * 


y »•/ 


.' * f 

^ Wiii^ Il ^ i _ <lli n t 


'.* ' ^ if ' •’•'k?' " ^ ‘ ■ •' 

■■;■' - ‘ -^ ' iTij ' >*- ■-*' - n 

: / "IS 





■» II-■■■!>« ’ vyj * 

->1^^^! y- r^ -r-- ; 




■’ ■l4u4'_ji|'j 


A- — 


:*V 


ffcii J 


























































































































































ni 'i * • ' i^ 

j ■ -. ’♦ •.' •• 

_ * 't • •, 

WSB> 


*4 



■ 




• 1 • . '■ |mi|w,vI> - ,K iv-' /It',*"?’ 7: ^V/ > -TT' • PLi^'SI^v 

^^*^“*^* ' *«— ^W >»I »i^>i|< iy ^ ~ l»i m |«|1*| K >I»> l»l »f ■ J <» ■ ^ n ^ • ••*- ••- 

milr^ ' ' t'. ' " * U ‘ f ;.<w: ' ' .«n; . ' ' ‘ I .: ' I! .. . • 



• < 


AM(|ph 


* I «< 

I*-. «*. 



,_^,, _ _■' :,;' 1 " 77 fe.;,' 7 i‘ 

mm ' y mM 

" •! ■—v-v wm * n '.,________^___, 

m-* «»> ' |ii*i n l■■|<-i I > < ■■ ■ i al l fc ■ I l^.j■lli^Ml^|l^■^^■^l a 


If. 




>*i 

> 1 ■ ■ 


u^y ■ *n 5 C; 7 V„ . 


' ; ■ Mii v/ar . ’J . 






:V'- '• 


.,«»• 


"4— 




1. J 





t'fIII*"" 

y'¥: 

'M ' 


• - ■ -— 





• * I V> 


f/,'. . 

^?JlR*Vr‘V»'•’.• •"' '-•*• * . 

■■'■■ ■« f»i^i^ « »4>b " i*- 1 —»-*-— 




... ... - 

* T *“■"* ' ■ "• ■ <>*iWil** H iiil i li#'»(pyi<|« n «i«ii I lanii ;^| ■ ■■ n »,m P0 

.•:#K'.’#i4^r^i K'-i. ■ - ; •■■' .", ., ....y 

■■?■}» ■ -:.U'. ■' . V' • I, : ■. >, 

'■ - • V ■'" * m ' ‘ •i‘-''!i-- • . * 

^- ■ ^_^ _ - -* ...— »__ 

•"ifl'l i * 1. 



m 

ji > " "ft 


V - ^ 4 1« 1 . - ’ . - ■ ^ ., • 

<»"^»iii %f » 7S i "r> W »«*i M jti» ? 

*M ' -*'•* ‘ ,1» 



I .(• ' '■,-...* # ' 

■ ■ i<ji^ »*> ^ i I I 1 ^ ^m. . 

' • 4 4 , *Tj_— ' , 


m 




' y ' •"' S'*’**. , '■■ ,■• 1*1 

.4/i. -< » •( , .N ■ . [ /, €t • ; ■ *.- 4 . . .1, 

■'' 'fj. ■ -*'•*•-■ . J: Jr U*>.! * i ' ■ '^‘1 








- ■■% ?:; I iffi 








^ I i.‘7 


' • • I -/ ‘ . . . . A , ' - -^ ' •■-*. *4 


.^: ■ ■'■ ' ■^^■■' ■ f ■ 

, r/. . ,‘ :■■ I/'--' 


J ■. 


ifcw ^y i 



* p> '' •. t • ’ <^ 

f 

i> 11 > I <i <T t»» 

^ - -I 

■ ' ■' • 



. III*.'.. .. O', > :;,. ^./ ^ ; -;.. '■ ■.•■' ■ ■■■v':.' ‘ •' ' .^ ■ -^^ifaii: 

■■ ■ n , i ,..t.^ y> .^, » . > . - 

i :..L .^'.y'^ife y 


i* -Vi 1 


iGi- ;, ' V y.".. 




[■*i*ibitfK]^^ .-^ -L.:—i ' ,;^ i»,y< U i'w ?i'' yii^». r^^.ab i . . . , ,,^ L<ai 

'A'-.,-' .•''-* •--{»'■- > i"^ '^4 ^ <C" w • ■ .' ' V. •'.'. •’•• • 

^- >■: 4 ■> ‘ •■ • ' *4 'i • .' ^ ' 

---- ^ —-- ^ ^ -- * _ -____ _ -- - ^ .j* « *^1^ ^ 


V . -- 

® ' * \ V • 

' %» »' <iiH«i*a y ^11^ I ' i-.■■■;■. -,-1-^*- L • j-V n V.J. _ 


<'M ' 



y ■ • ‘^ 





rjit|ii *-7^ 

^ ^ *vxj- 

vF .|(jy 

Wa 






ilL. 





U;y "'A:iri.>7 .... <':■ -v ‘-- ' ^ ' 























































































































































































_z 




PROSPERITY THE RESULT OF PROTECTIVE TARIFF. 


SPEECH 


HON. DARWm R. JAMES, 

OF YORK, 


IN THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


Monday, May 5, 1884. 


WASHINGTON. 

1884 . 




SPEECH 


OP 

HON. DARWIN R. JAMES. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5893) to reduce import duties and 
Mrar-taritf taxes— 

Mr. JAMES said: 

Mr. Chairman : Though usually averse to occupying the time of the 
House in presenting my sentiments upon any subject, yet it has oc¬ 
curred to me that in this instance I ought to give expression to my 
views upon the subject of tariff revision, particularly as my vote was 
not in line with that of my party upon the question of taking up for 
consideration House hill 5893, ‘ ‘ a bill to reduce import duties and war- 
tariff taxes,” introduced by the honorable gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Morrison]. I do not wish to be misunderstood because of my 
course on that occasion. I am and always have been thoroughly in 
sympathy with the policy of protection, but I thought that by the 
discussion of the question of tariff revision some good might be accom¬ 
plished through the modification of'the existing tariff law, enacted 
hastily during the short session of the last Congress. The end sought 
in the enactment of that law was to reduce revenue d to lessen the 
burdens resting upon the people without disturbing the protected in¬ 
dustries; but the unfortunate fact remains that the revenue has not 
been materially reduced, nor is it likely to be under this law, and into 
the coffers of the United States Treasury the surplus is flowing at the 
rate of 1100,000,000 during the fiscal year, and is a constant temptation 
to extravagance and improper appropriations, besides being a needless 
burden upon the people. 

I am clear in my convictions that the policy of protecting the iufant 
industries of our country is the only sound one, and I say this as a 
commercial man, as an importer of foreign merchandise, doing busi¬ 
ness in the great commercial metropolis of this nation, the place of all 
others where one would expect to find free-trade principles and fol- 



4 


lowers, where one would expect to meet its champions in solid pha¬ 
lanx. I venture to assert that although it is the headquarters of the 
American branch of the Cobden Club, yet that the substantial merchants, 
bankers, and intelligent citizens are, in the majority of cases, favorable 
to protection to home industries. It was clearly illustrated in the Presi¬ 
dential election of 1880. New York was the pivotal State. New York 
was carried by the Eepublicans upon the platform of protective tariff, 
and the majority of 21,033 was the result and the outcome of the unusual 
interest taken in the success of the candidate of the party of protection 
by these same merchants, bankers, brokers, and citizens generally, who 
organized clubs and turned out en masse and worked diligently tor 
the enlightenment of the people ui)on the subject of a protective tariff. 

The unfortunate utterances of the candidate of the Democratic party 
nipon this question brought about the defeat of that party and its can¬ 
didate. The working people took up the subject, and the issue was 
fought squarely in New York and Brooklyn, and the usual large Demo¬ 
cratic majorities were sufficiently cut down to admit of the State giving 
a majority for the Eepublican, Garfield. Protective tariff was clearly 
the issue and protection won in that race. 

To show the wonderfully stimulating effect of the protective tariff 
system upon manufacturing interests I propose to take for illustration 
the cities of Brooklyn and New York, where the foreign commerce of the 
country has been so largely concentrated, these two cities being prac¬ 
tically one in all business and commercial matters. I have prepared a 
few statistics, showing the population, number of hands employed in 
various industries, capital invested, and annual product of said indus¬ 
tries; also the amount of the foreign commerce at the port of New 
York, as ascertained by the United States census in 1860,1870, and 1880. 

According to the census of 1880 the city of New York ranked first 
in the number of its manufacturing and other industries, there beino- 
11,339; but in amount of capital invested and the value of the annual 
product she ranked second, the city of Philadelphia being first. The 
city of Brooklyn, which I have the honor in part to represent, ranked 
third in the number of its manufacturing and other industries, there 
being 5,201, but in amount of capital invested and the value of the 
annual product she ranked fourth, the city of Chicago being third. 

The population of the city of Brooklyn rather more than doubled 
during the twenty years from 1860 to 1880. The number of hands em- 


ployed in its varied industries ran up from 12,758 in 1860 to 47,587 in 
1880, nearly four times as many. The amount of capital invested in¬ 
creased from $12,320,876 in 1860 to $61,646,749 in 1880, an increase of 
500 per cent. The annual product ran up from $34,241,520 in 1860 to 
$177,223,142 in 1880, an increase of over 500 per cent. 

The population of the city of New York in 1860 was 805,651, and in 
1880 it was 1,206,299, an increase of 50 per cent. The number of hands 
employed in manufacturing and other industries increased from 90,204 
in 1860 to 227,352 in 1880, an increase of 250 per cent. The amount of 
capital invested increased from $61,212,757 in 1860, to $181,206,356 in 
1880, an increase of nearly 300 per cent. The annual product increased 
from $159,107,369 in 1860 to $472,926,437 in 1880, a like increase of 
nearly 300 per cent. In both cities the percentage of increase was much 
larger from 1870 to 1880 than from 1860 to 1870. Eight per cent, of the 
inhabitants of the city of Brooklyn are employed in manufacturing and 
mechanical industries, and 20 per cent, of the inhabitants of the city of 
New York are so employed. 

This enormous increase in manufacturing and mechanical industries 
of the two cities is remarkable in view of the fact that foreign com¬ 
merce has been supposed to be the interest to be first considered; and 
yet the increase of foreign commerce at the port of New York has been 
almost as remarkable, although the manufacturing interests have been 
gaining upon the foreign commerce. I shall not allude to domestic 
commerce or the coastwise trade. The foreign commerce at the port 
of New York in the year 1860, imports and exports, exclusive of specie, 
was $354,323,895; the value of the industrial product of the two cities. 
New York and Brooklyn, that year was $193,328,889, rather more than 
half as much. In 1870 the imports and exports, exclusive of specie,, 
amounted to $499,281,111; the valueof the industrial product of the two 
cities was $393,800,193. In 1880 the imports and exports, exclusive of 
specie, amounted to $879,999,827, and the value of the industrial prod¬ 
uct of the two cities was $650,149,579. 

During the twenty years the foreign commerce increased 250 per cent, 
and the manufacturing and industrial products nearly 350 per cent. 
Fifteen and three-fourths per cent, of the population of the two cities 
were in the year 1880 employed in these manufacturing and industrial 
interests. I have gone somewhat minutely into this subject because I 
have thought it a good illustration of the beneficent results of the pro- 


G 


tective-tariif laws of whicli the Republican party has been the expo¬ 
nent. I propose to’ go a step further, and to show the prosperity of the 
working people of the two cities and of the State of New York through 
their accumulations of savings, as indicated by their deposits in the 
savings-banks of the State. I believe there is no better way of arriv¬ 
ing at the financial prosperity of the people than in studying their in¬ 
stitutions for savings, but in this exhibit I leave out all trust companies, 
building and other co-operative organizations, and confine myself sim¬ 
ply to the savings-banks. In 1860 the savings-banks of New York and 
Kings Counties held on deposit to the credit of customers 149,034,133, 
an average of $215.92 each. In 1870 the amount on deposit was $147,- 
204,226, an average of $305.34 to each depositor. In 1883the amount 
on deposit was $294,208,390, an average of $384.03 each to 766,094 de¬ 
positors. One in every three of the people of these two counties had a 
deposit of $384.03 in a savings-bank. 

The savings-banks of the entire State of New York held to the credit 
of their customers in the year 1860 $58,178,160, an average of $208.91 to 
^ach depositor. On January 1,1870, they held $194,360,217, an average 
of $296.80 to each depositor. On January 1,1883, they held $412,147,- 
213 to the credit of 1,095,971 depositors, an average of $376.05 to each; 
in other words, one in every five of the inhabitants of the State had on 
deposit in a savings-bank $376.05. 

I do not wish to be understood as saying that all of the industries at 
which the people of the two cities are employed are protected, or that 
the depositors in savings-banks are all employed in manufacturing or 
industrial pursuits; but I claim that the great growth of these interests 
and the general prosperity of the people are largely the result of the pro¬ 
tective policy. 

I have no thought that the prosperity of the people of the State of 
New York and of the cities of New York and Brooklyn is exceptional; 
far from it. I believe that the entire country has shared in a prosperity 
perhaps the most remarkable in the history of any country at any age 
of the world. With few exceptions all industries have flourished, the 
most important exception being the ocean carrying trade, and the de¬ 
cline in this industry is owing to other causes than protection, in fact, 
is owing to the lack of protection. I copy a few sentences from a 
memorial to Congress adopted by the Chamber of Commerce of New 
York city February 4, 1864, and accompanying a carefully prepared 


comparative statement of the growth of the British and decline of the 
American carrying trade, with other valuable statistics. It is as fol¬ 
lows: 

Your memorialists have endeavored to lay before you the importance of ocean 
steam navigation and its dependence, in the present stage of mechanical art, 
upon Government subsidies. They have pointed out the steadiness and regu¬ 
larity with which the British Government, through all periods of distress and 
financial difficulty, has faithfully supported the system which it inaugurated, 
establishing regular communication with point after point, as commerce, which 
the introduction of steam develops, has demanded new facilities. They have 
endeavored to estimate the harvest of wealth which Great Britain has reaped 
from the careful husbandry of its statesmen. * * * Our steamers have been 
driven from the ocean, until now not a solitary one carries our flag to any Euro¬ 
pean port. * * * Not for want of enterprise on the part of her citizens, for 
the steamers already built can not hold their own upon the seas for the want of 
that aid and fostering legislation which other governments so liberally supply 
and without which competition is ruin. 

As to what the future of this industry is to be no one is wise enough 
to tell, but under any circumstances its revival will be slow even with 
the removal of all surrounding difficulties. 

Belie\ing as I do that the policy of protection has been a wise one, I 
would not propose to change it; but I am thoroughly convinced that 
the time has come for a modification of the tariff laws with a view to a 
large reduction of the revenue and a lifting of the burdens resting on 
the people. The policy of the people of this country has been to collect 
its revenues largely through a tariff tax upon importations, and I do not 
believe any other way would be equally acceptable. The question at 
issue is, and has been almost from the beginning, whether the tariff 
tax should be for revenue only or for revenue with incidental protection. 
Upon this question the great statesmen have fought their battles until 
the subject has been thoroughly canvassed. 

But the question of paramount importance now, the one which is 
staring the nation and its lawmakers in the face, is the reduction of 
the revenue. The revision of the tariff laws by the Forty-seventh Con¬ 
gress, undertaken with a view to a large reduction of revenue, does not 
seem to have accomplished that desirable end, and it is estimated that 
the surplus during the present fiscal year, as I have said before, will 
reach a hundred million dollars. The effect of the continued accumu¬ 
lation of an enormous surplus is unfortunate; it leads to constant raids 
upon the Treasury and the bringing in ofall sorts of schemes of extrava¬ 
gance, leading to improper appropriations, besides being an unnecessary 
burden to be borne by the people. To reduce revenue there are three 


ways: First, through removing part or allot the internal taxes; second, 
readjusting the tariflflaws, adding largely to the free-list; third, raising 
the tariff so high that it becomes prohibitory, thereby cutting off foreign 
trade and drawing a wall around our country, isolating it from the 
brotherhood of nations. 

The plan proposed in the bill under consideration is a horizontal re¬ 
duction of somewhere about 20 per cent., and the addition of coal (ex¬ 
cept from the Dominion of Canada), salt, and lumber to the free-list. 
From the discussion of the bill on both sides of the House I am in doubt 
if it would materially reduce the revenue. It is asserted by^those who 
are favorable to its passage, as well as by those opposed, that it will-not 
effect much reduction. As to the plan itself I have little to say. I 
think it an exceedingly awkward one, and one which I could not sup¬ 
port. I have no doubt but that the effect of its enactment into a law 
would be ruin to many branches of industry, while others could safely 
be reduced niore than is provided for by the provisions of this bill. In 
voting to consider the bill I had no expectation that I could vote for 
the clauses providing for th'e horizontal reduction, and the discussion 
which has ensued has convinced me that my judgment was correct, and 
that the enactment of such a law would be fraught with serious mis¬ 
chief. 

To accomplish the end of a reduction of the revenue I would propose 
a further reduction in the tariff on sugar; I would add largely to the 
free-list, articles which are classed as raw materials, such as jute, jute 
butts, manila hemp, sisal, tin plates, and a variety of articles which 
enter into the great manufacturing industries, as well as articles which 
enter into daily use but are not the product of our own country. By 
removing the duty on hemp and sisal, for instance, one of the heavy 
burdens resting upon the ship-building industry would be lifted and 
the product of our rope manufactories could be sold in foreign coun¬ 
tries. The plan suggested would reduce revenue, help our manufac¬ 
tories, and would relieve the farmer and workman. 


O 


Aid to Comiiioii Schools. 


SPEECH 

OK 

HON. B. F. JONAS, 

OF I>() U IS I ANA , 

In the Senate oe the United S'I’ates, 

Wednesday, March 26, 1884. 


The Senate, a.s in (Jonnnittee of the Whole, havin}? under consideration 
the bill (S. 398) to ai<l in th^'establishment and teinjjorary support of common 
schools— 

Mr. JONAS said; 

Mr. President: 1 bad intended to content myself with ca,sting a 
silent vote in favor of this measure. It is one which my people approve 
and favor, one which I favor, and have from its inception. I think 
great credit is due to the very able chairman of the committee which 
has presented this measure, and to the Senators associated with him 
' for their efforts in* bringing it before the Senate and the country, 
for the diligence which they have displayed in collecting facts and sta¬ 
tistics to present to the Senate and the country, and for their single- 
minded efforts in behalf of a cause which is not only dear to the people 
of my State, l)ut which has become a measure of necessity to the people 
of one-half of the States of this Union, if not in some manner to them 
all. * 

I accept this bill in behalf of the people whom I in part represent 
as a great benefaction, as a great assi.stance to a people overburdened 
by a charge laid upon them which they are unable to meet, but which 
they have every disposition to carry out to the very best of their ability. 
The State of Louisiana figures far down in the roll of States charged 
with having a large illiterate population. I do not intend to go into 
details that have been discussed over and over again to show why this 
great illiteracy exists, certainly not by our fault, and certainly any one 
who has studied the history of the Southern States since the war, who 
is familiar w ith the struggle wdiich those people have made to regain 
their former prosperity, who considers the burden of debt and taxation 
under which they have been staggering, who considers the immense 
amount of property wdiich was swept away and destroyed in the civil 
revolution in which they were engaged, must recognize the inability of 
that people to fulfill the duty w’^hich they owe, and I admit it, to give 
the children living within their States the benefit of education and to 


2 


qualify them for the enjoyment of the privileges and the performance 
of the duties of citizens. 

Therefore I intended to vote for the hill without saying a word in 
its favor, believing that its manifold merits had been fully set forth by 
the Senator who had it in charge. But I cjin not remain in my seat 
and be silent as to charges which have been made against the people of 
my State as well as the other States of the South, by Senators who 
have spoken in opposition to the bill, on the other side of the Chamber, 
yesterday and to-day. 

The distinguished Senator from Ohio [Mr. Siiekmax] last evening 
approached the consideration of the bill with that cool deliberation 
which always characterizes him. He expressed the most generous sen¬ 
timents towards the people of the South; he had nothing but pity and 
sympathy for them in their misfortunes; he advociited the general ob¬ 
ject and character of the bill, vindicated its constitutionality, assumed 
the duty which he said rested upon the people of the country to educate 
those ignorant peojde, the emancipated slaves and their children, and 
then proceeded to give reasons why he could not vote for the bill, reasons 
in search of which he w’^enl back into the days immediately after the 
war, and raked up the history of the period of reconstruction, the kill¬ 
ing of Abraham Lincoln, the turpitudes and tergiversations of Andrew 
Johnson, the passage of the constitutional amendments, the necessity 
which rested upon the political party then in power to give the ballot 
to the emancipated slaves, winding up by the intimation that it "wns 
unsafe at the present time to put the control of the expenditure of this 
money in the hands of the people of the South, intimating that at this 
day, nearly twenty years alter the events of which he was speaking, 
after the results of the war had been fully accepted, after the constitu¬ 
tional amendments had been recognized and accepted as fully at the 
South as at the North, giving as his reasons ‘for opposing the bill that 
the South could not be trusted to administer this fund unless some 
amendments are made to the bill by which Federal machinery can be 
carried into the States to control its administration and its distribution. 

To-day the Senator from the far-off State of Oregon [Mr. Dolpii] 
also in a mild and brotherly manner has expressed his sympathy with 
the South, his friendship for the South, his affection for its peo})le, his 
admiration for the stand which they took and maintained for nearly 
four years in a mistaken cause, his admiration for the manner in which 
they accepted the results of the ruin and do-stiifall of that cause, his 
admiration for the manner in which they accepted the measures of re¬ 
construction, and yet, with all this, he has taken upon himself to make 
insinuations and charges against those States and their people of the 
most injurious and calumnious character. Without specifying one sin¬ 
gle charge or giving one single source of information, he has assumed to 
say that we set aside and tread upon the constitutional amendments; 
he has assumed to say that we deprive one class of the people of their 
constitutional and civil rights; he has assumed to express his belief 
that we will not faithfully administer this fund if confided to us for 
the purpose of educating the colored people. He has said, with all his 
generous sympathy for us, that he has manifold reasons for believing 
and knowing all these things, and yet he has not made one specific 
charge, nor given one single and solitary fact. His speech couched 
in honeyed words was full of gall and bitterness. He professes that 
his feelings are those of beneficence toward the people of the South, and 
yet he stabs them in their tenderest sensibilities without giving any 


3 


reasons, or any facts, but intimating that he lias some secret source of 
information which convinces him that those people who have borne so 
much, submitted to so much, and vindicated their claim to jiatience 
and to manhood through so many years, can not be trusted with the 
administration of this benefaction which this bill proposes to give to 
them, not for themselves but for the purpose of educating the ignorant, 
the uncultivated wards of the nation, whom you have made their citizens 
and suffragans. 

Mr. President, I deny these charges, baseless as they are, as calum¬ 
nies, as slanderous imputations upon the people whom 1 in part repre¬ 
sent. I say that to the best of our abilitj^ in the State of Louisiana, 
and I believe throughout the South, Ave have striven to do equal ju.stice 
to the colored man with the white; that in the matter of education 
we have opened our schools to both classes alike. Small as our means 
haA'e been, humble as our efforts have been from Avantof means to make 
them greater, A\’e have divided equally Avith the colored race. We have 
given them eciual school-houses, teachers of equal capacity, and an equal 
distrilnition of the school fund in proportion to their population, and 
haA’e striven to the best of our poor ability to giA e them the benefits of 
education. 

Whose interest is it that those people should be educated ? From the 
North comes for them a profound sympathy. You sympathize Avith 
them for their former condition of slavery, you sympathize Aviththem 
for their ignorance, jmu sympathize Avith them for their poverty; but 
they are our fellow’-citizens and are living among us. We meet them 
in the walks of every-day life. They are our neighbors, they pervade 
the streets of our cities, they livein our villages, and they culth'aleour 
farms and fields; they mix Avith our families, they mix Avith our chil¬ 
dren, they vote at f he polls, and to a large extent control our elections. 
The Presiding Officer [Mr. Fkye in the cliair] shakes his head. I 
think if he couches that shake of the head in the same language as 
the Senator from Oregon, I can di.sprove it so far as the State Avhich I 
represent is concerned. It is to the interest of our people that Ave 
should educate that population. Ignorant and uneducated, they are 
dangerous to our civilization, dangerous to our safet}^ dangerous to our 
peace, dangerous to our jwosperity. It is to our interest to educate 
them, to qualify them for those duties of citizenship Avhich you have 
bestoAved upon them, and for Avhich, as certainly you Avill admit your¬ 
selves, they are incapacitated. 

Mr. HAKRISON. Will the Senator allow me to interruiff^him a 
moment for a question ? 

Mr. JONAS. Certainly. 

Mr. HARRISON. Did I understand the Senator to express the 
opinion that the colored people of the South controlled the elections of 
that section ? 

Mr. JONAS. They do in some sections Avhere they have the numer¬ 
ical right to control, and they control them in some instances in the 
interest of the Democratic party; but they Amte freely; they vote as 
they please. I am aware that if they vote for the Democratic party 
the Senator does not consider, and will not believe, that they exercise 
their civil rights, but they vote as they please. 

Mr. HARRISON. The Senator greatly misrepresents me. 

Mr. JONAS. If I do I take it all back. I have no desire to mis¬ 
represent the Senator. 

Mr. HARRISON. I have but one desire, and that is that everybody 



4 


in the South as well as in the Xorth, ev'ery black man as well as white 
man, shall express his own convictions by a free and untrammeled bal¬ 
lot which shall be fairly counted. 

Mr. JOXAS. I shake hands with the Senator; and that his ballot 
may be free and untrammeled and may be intelligent, I want to give 
the blessings of education to him and his children. I want to quality 
all for the exercise of that right intelligently; and therefore I accept 
the benefaction which you bring us. We are unable to give them edu¬ 
cation, and I welcome this aid. 

Mr President, it is a necessity, I repeat again, to us that these people 
should be educated. Therefore I repel the insinuation which has been 
made that the people of the South, or at least that part of the people 
of the South that I represent, will be faithless to this trust if confided 
to them. 

Why, my friend who is in the chair [Mr. Fkyk] knows that the evi¬ 
dence taken by the committee that examined into the affairs of the far- 
famed county of Copiah proved, if it proved nothing else, that the ben¬ 
efits of education, to the utmost limit of the capacity of that people, 
were extended to both races alike. It was proven before that commit¬ 
tee that they had an equal number of school-houses, an equal number 
of teachers, an equal distribution of the school fund in proportion to 
their numbers, and every facility was accorded to them for education 
that was accorded to the white people. I believe this is the case all 
over the South. I know it is the case in my State. 

I shall welcome the day when the assistance of the National Groveni- 
ment, which you give by this lull, will enable us to afford universal 
education; but without this bill I hope and believe the time will come 
when we shall have greater prosperity, and will be able to raise our¬ 
selves the necessary funds with which to give the blessings of education 
to every man, woman, and child in our State, no matter what his oi¬ 
lier race, color, or previous condition, and in this hope I afn expressing 
the unanimous feeling of the people whom I in part represent. 

O 



t 


^13 


Bureau of Animal Industry. 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON. BUER W. JONES, 

OF WISCONSIN, 

In the House of Kepresentatives, 

Saturday^ February 23, 1884. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 
and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 3967) to prevent the exportation 
of diseased cattle and to provide means for the suppression and extii-pation of 
pleuro-pneumonia and other contagious diseases among domestic animals— 

Mr. JONES, of Wisconsin, said: 

Mr. Chairman : I am glad of the opportunity to vote for and to be¬ 
friend this hill. The only doubt which I have had as to the propriety 
of giving it my vote was one which I have not heretofore heard men¬ 
tioned. It was whether or not the sum of $250,000 was not more 
than was necessary to begin the work contemplated in this bill. But 
as I have heard the facts and statements which have been so carefully 
gathered and presented by the committee reporting this bill, every 
doubt of that kind has been dispelled. It seems to me that the amount 
named is not excessive, but only a fairly decent sum to be appropri¬ 
ated for a very important object. 

What is the situation? It appears that this disease actually exists. 
It exists in the District of Columbia; it exists in three or four States 
besides. It has infected already some hundreds, yes, some thousands 
of cattle. It is a contagious disease, a disease for which there is no 
cure but death. It exists among those classes and grades of cattle which 
are eagerly sought by the enterprising cattle-growers of the West to 
improve their herds. The disease is now confined for the most part to 
the cities of New York, Baltimore, and Washington, and the adjacent 
regions. 

But let that disease be once carried from the stables of the cities to 
the farms of the great West, where cattle are but little confined; let 
it extend to the great cattle-growing States of Wisconsin, Illinois, 
Nebraska, and the regions further west, and the loss which may be in¬ 
flicted thereby upon our people would be simply incalculable. 

We are told that when this disease found its way upon the plains of 
Russia the loss which it entailed was from forty to fifty millions of 
dollars. 

It appears from the facts before us that Europe counts her losses from 



2 


♦ 


this disease alone by hundreds of millions of dollars; that there the 
dangers of the disease are well understood. European governments 
have taken every precaution to stay its progress, and we may well take 
lesson from their example. In view of the losses which other nations 
have suffered from the inroads of this disease, the agricultural com¬ 
munity and the business interests of this country should look with dread 
and alarm upon its approach to those States which rely so much upon 
the cattle industry. Petitions are before us from the West which assert, 
and with reason, that this contagious disease might any day be carried 
from the stables of New York or Baltimore to the farms of Wisconsin 
or Illinois. If that fear should be realized there is no reason to suppose 
that the losses of our people would not assume equal proportions with 
those of the citizens of other lands. 

But this is not the only aspect which this problem presents. The 
farmers and stock-growers of this country produce about 80 per cent, 
of all the exports which find their way from this country to the markets 
of the world. It would be an evil day for this country when the swell¬ 
ing surplus of our American farms should be for any long time debarred 
from the markets of Europe. 

But already there come to us complaints from our districts and through 
the press that our exports of cattle and hogs are being denied entrance 
to Germany and France; that already owing to these causes our exports 
of cattle have fallen off some millions of dollars per year; that Great 
Britain has made such regulations that our cattle have to be slaughtered 
at her ports, thereby inflicting a loss of $10 or $12 in each instance, and 
causing during the year by this regulation alone a loss of a million of 
dollars to the cattle-growing interests of this country. 

The situation is so serious that we can not entirely overlook it if we 
would. There are various methods of dealing with the problem. It 
has become popular to denounce the i)olicy of Germany, of France, 
and of Great Britain. It seems to be the fashion to demand retalia¬ 
tion. From many quarters we are asked to close our ports to a portion 
of the products of those nations; to make war upon their commerce 
because it is fancied that they have made unnecessary war upon ours. 
Sir, we may be compelled to adopt such a policy, but in my judgment 
it should be the last resort. It would be a policy better adapted to 
the customs of four or five hundred years ago than to the civilization of 
the nineteenth century. Such a policy might indeed strike a blow at 
the commerce of other nations, but it would inflict a far heavier blow 
upon the commerce of our own country. 

There is one other method of dealing with these questions. That 
method, I believe, would be fitly inaugurated by the pa.ssage of this 
bill. That method is to eradicate this disease if possible. It is to adopt 
every plan known to civilized nations to stay its further progress. We 
should have such quarantine laws that the infection shall extend no fur¬ 
ther; that it shall neither find further entrance from abroad nor extend 
from State to State. We should have such inspection laws that we may 
know definitely its limits; such laws and such enforcement of them 
that we may know perfectly where the disease exists, and that we may 
be able to state ofiicially and with authority whether diseased cattle 
are expoi'ted from New York or other ports to the markets of the world. 
Then, if we must needs enter upon the system of retaliation and re¬ 
striction, it cannot be clnirged that we have entered upon it in reckless 
haste; that we have failed to adopt those safeguards and those precau¬ 
tions common to the other commercial nations of the earth. 


3 


Now, I have not time in the ten minutes allowed me to discuss at any 
length the constitutional questions involved in this hill. I should not 
even enter upon them but for the reason that they have been discussed 
at length by the opponents of the bill and none of its friends have dis¬ 
cussed its constitutionality, except the gentleman from Illinois who has 
just taken his seat. It seems to me that there can not well be clearei 
warrant for legislation than we find in the constitutional provision upon 
which this bill would rest. I refer of course to that provision which 
gives to Congress the power to regulate commerce among the States and 
with foreign nations. That provision of the Constitution has long since 
had interpretation, the interpretation of statesmen and of jurists. Per¬ 
haps the best exposition it has ever received was that of the great states¬ 
man and lawyer Daniel Webster, whose arguments will adorn for all 
time the legal literature of our country. If there was any man in his 
generation in this country or on the globe who could give it a better 
interpretation it was the great Chief-Justice Marshall. We have his 
interpretation of this constitutional provision given more than fiftj^ years 
ago in the case of Gibbons against Ogden. 

In that case the constitutionality of such a law as this was not in is¬ 
sue, it is true, but the Chief-Justice discussed with his usual vigor and 
clearne.ss the meaning of the clause I have refeiTed to. He by no 
means gave it that narrow and stingy interpretation which is now 
claimed for it, and which would rob it of its dignity and its mean¬ 
ing. The court of highest resort has ever since followed that decision. ^ 
Meanwhile the exigencies of commerce have developed new legislation 
and new decisions. Within the past few years the Supreme Court has 
given a still broader interpretation to that clause. The late decisions 
which point out the limited powers of the States to enact general quar¬ 
antine laws and concede that power to Congress are in line with the in¬ 
terpretation given to this clause more than fifty years ago. 

But the legislative branch of the Government has long given the same 
interpretation to this clause. In the early days of this Government Con¬ 
gress pasSed the famous embargo act. That was an act requiring for 
its support a far more liberal construction of this clause than the bill 
before us. That was not a mere regulation of commerce in a narrow 
sense of the word, but for the time being it was an absolute prohibition 
of foreign commerce, to the end that it might be protected and in a large 
sense regulated and preserved. That broad exercise of power was sus¬ 
tained by the courts as constitutional. If there were time I could point 
to instances from that day to this where Congress by its legislation has 
given the same liberal interpretation to this clause. Look at the act of 
1879, designed to check the cholera and the yellow fever. By the pro¬ 
visions of that act the power was given to the Board ot Health, Federal 
officers, to co-operate with the State authorities to stay the progress ol 
contagious diseases. In default of action by the State authorities the 
Board of Health were given authority to make regulations of their own 
upon this subject; in short, to declare and enforce quarantine regulations. 
Their power was not confined by the law to ports of entry, but extended 
to every city and village of this country where it might be necessary to 
act. If the bill under discussion is unconstitutional, so was the act of 
1879. That act forms a perfect precedent for this; and it is strange that 
the note of alarm was not then raised, and that that law was enacted 
almost, if not entirely, without opposition. 

It seems to me that the decisions of the Supreme Court and the uni¬ 
form legislation of Congress have long since settled this question. I 


4 


'iiiterpiet tlie meaning of those decisions and of that legislation to he 
this: That the States may control their domestic commerce; that they 
may enact their inspection and quarantine laws within reasonable and 
proper limits, and so far as may be necessary to control their internal 
alfairs. But that this by no means is an exclusive power which pre- 
'vents Congress from controlling and regulating the commerce of State 
■with State, or of this nation with other nations. That is a power to 
which no State law is adequate; which rests only in the hands of Con- 
rgress. 

When the commerce of our whole people with Europe is endangered 
as to exports of the* value of more than a hundred millions of dollars, 
by the want of proper legislation, it would surely seem that the power 
of Congress had vested, if it could ever vest. Those who framed the 
Constitution could not have meant that this clause which gives to Con¬ 
gress the power to control commerce among the several States and with 
foreign nations should have the narrow and restricted meaning con¬ 
tended for by the enemies of this bill. Those men had learned by sad 
■experience that the commerce of a government like ours must have 
some stronger and safer foundation than State control. They believed 
that there should rest somewhere an undivided power of control over 
the commerce of a great nation. It was this widespread conviction as 
much as any one cause that gave us the government and the union we 
mow enjoy. 

I would preserve clear and distinct the line between State and Fed¬ 
eral authority, but I can not give to this clause the technical construc¬ 
tion placed upon it by the gentlemen from Texas and West Virginia. I 
should have little respect for that government, however wide its domain 
- or populous its cities, which had not the power to raise an army to de¬ 
fend its flag. I should hold in equal contempt that government which 
'had not the power to raise a dollar to stay the progress of a dread disease. 

I shall support this bill with all the more pleasure, because I believe 
it is desired by the agricultural community of this country. It is not 
■often that this class ask legislation at our hands. There come to us, 
•day by day, memorials and printed arguments from the great cities and 
moneyed centers, asking this or that special legislation for special classes. 
Each manufacturing interest in turn asks consideration or relief. Mean¬ 
while that great mass of the people who till the soil go silently on, bear¬ 
ing, too willingly, the burdens of tax and tariff imposed upon them by 
special legislation. 

Believing as I do that this bill is desired by that class of whom I 
have just spoken, and that it may aid in averting from them and from 
the entire business community very serious injury, I give it my unhes- 
dtating support. 

O 


if; H- 

THE BONDED-EXTENSION BILL. 


HON. 

SPEECH 

or 

BURR W. JONES, 

OF WISCONSFV, 


IN THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Tiiuesday, Makoh 27 , 1884 . 


WASHINGTON. 

1884 . 



.. i:y 'V-Wji^'t^'^iXaTXH-aaqK^ aBT - ; 


' • . ■ lill-l A'I’< /■ '' ■; 

^^■'- ’ • ^ ..' ■ ’ ■. ■ .-■I 

r-'. - ■ 

., ■ -'SS 

p ;3;*5f;ZOi, ' 1 ^ ,«a:ja: .xoaa 


.'■ .' ; ■ . ■ - i/ 

;a;'7 /;■’> .Ti: a->:f^.iv: .Y^am;/aT 



?s^^ ; ’ 



.1 fHl 



■■ #■ 
J- 


ri\ 
vVv • 


I 





S i : 1^] C I I 


OK 

H 0 X . U R K AV . JO X E S. 


The House being' in Committee of the Whole, and having umler consideration 
the bill (II. R. 5265) to extend the time for the payment of the tax on distilled 
.spirits now in warehouse— 

Mr. JONES said: 

Mr. Chairman: The whole question involved in this discussion is 
this: Have the distillers presented to-us sufficient reasons why we should 
extend for two years the time for the itayment of their tax upon distilled 
spirits. I agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Hr. Kanhall] 
that this is the most important bill which we have yet had before us for 
consideration. It involves not only the extension of a tax upon 70,000, - 
000 gallons of whisky, but it bears in many ways upon our entire revenue 
system. It is a question of such importance touching our revenue 
])olicy astomerit careful attention. I am entirely content to view it as a 
practical business matter, leaving to others those questions of sentiment 
and morals which are more inviting to many because they afford abetter 
field for the triumphs of oratorjc 

This is not the first time that the distillers have come to Congress 
asking special legislation of this character. 

Prior to 1878 the law had required distillers to pay the tax within 
one year after placing the product in the Government warehouses. 
In other words, the manufacturer was allowed one year in which to 
sell his product before the payment of any tax was required. This 
had been the law for ten years. In 1878 the distillers came to Congress 
alleging that they were in distress. They had produced more than 
they could sell, They had large quantities of whisky in the warehouses 
and could not raise the money necessary to pay the tax. They begged 
Congress to give them relief Congress yielded and by legislative act 
gave them such an extension of time that thereafter they were to have 
three years instead of one. Did the distillers learn wisdom in their 
advancing years from the follies of their youth? Not at all. They at 
once entered into an extravagance and prodigality in the manufacture 
of whisky entirely unparalleled in the history of this country. 

Thegentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Willis] tells us that the amount 
manufactured in 1878 was, in round numbers, 50,000,000 gallons; in 
1879, 71,000,000 gallons; in 1880, 90,000,000; in 1881, 117,000,000gal¬ 
lons. The normal inoduction is about 71,000,000 gallons j)er year. 

These figures are an argument which needs little elaboration. They 



4 

show that by the legislation of 1878 every distillery was stimulated into 
unnatural activity. PI very distiller argued that his whisky would grow 
valuable as it gained the smack of age. 01 course he took advantage 
of the extension. He postponed the payment of his tax as lon^as pos¬ 
sible. He steadily manufactured his whisky and as steadily marked up 
the price as it grew venerable with age. Mark the result. In 1878 the 
distillers had about 14,000, (>00 gallons of whisky in the bonded ware¬ 
houses; in 1882 the amount had swelled to 80,000,000 gallons. Again 
they were without purchasers. The fierce fever of excitement and spec¬ 
ulation had passed away; the relapse had coine. 

We are now asked to extend the period to five years, in effect to give 
another lease of life to specnlation and overproduction. Is tins the 
province of Congre.ss ? We of course regret the distress and embar¬ 
rassment which the distillers have by their own folly brought about 
them, but is it our duty to indulge in this kind of special legisla¬ 
tion whenever the agents of any industry paint its embarrassment in 
glowing.colors? If so, we may bid a long good-by to general legisla¬ 
tion, for there are other industries all about us equally worthy and far 
more needy. The manufacturers of distilled spirits, like other busi¬ 
ness men, should regulate their business to the laws of the land. They 
must recognize, too, that great law of supply and demand which stands 
unchangeable and the same while statutes come and go. 

Brewers, wholesale and retail liquor dealers, tobacco dealers, pay their 
taxes to the General Government. So far as I know, they pay them 
promptly and without complaint. They are not accustomed to besiege 
every Congress for exemption from the burdens of taxation. I do not 
feel disnosed to simrle out the distillers as the one class who are not 
expected to pay their taxes promptly and according to existing laws.- 
If-there is any one doctrine thoroughly imbedded in the minds of the 
American people, it is that their taxes must be paid and paid promptly; 
that the payment of taxes is just as inevitable as storm and sunshine 
and dexith. And it is a wholesome doctrine; one upon which depends 
the very administration of government. 

In my judgment the sooner the distillers recognize that their taxes 
must also be paid, and paid within the time prescribed by law, the 
sooner they will place their business on a safe basis. They have relied 
altogether too much and too often upon Congressional aid. Any tem¬ 
porary relief which we can give the distillers would only aggravate the 
speculation and overproduction which are the fruitful causesof all their 
ills. There lie upon our desks copies of telegrams from about seventy 
banks urging our compliance with this demand. It undoubtedly means 
that the banks in some sections are interested in the passage of this 
bill. They have given credit to the distillers, and are to some extent 
perhaps involved in the embarrassment which speculation and over¬ 
production have caused. But I can not see that it is our duty to yield 
to this pressure. The bankers, like the distillers, ought to be able to 
protect their own interests. They know' the law^s of the land. 

No class of men on earth can so easily touch the pulse of the world’s 
commerce. No men are less excusable if they defy the great laws of 
trade, to which all successful business men must yield obedience. If 
they, too, have caught the fever of speculation, if to make large profits 
they have ventured upon large risks, they may as well learn now' as 
ever that the Government of the United States is not their partner, and 
is in no manner responsible for their folly. 



r) 

We are assured hy some of the friends of this bill that the CTOverument 
Mould not lose a farthing of its revenue by this action. But the bill 
itself does not speak so emphatically upon this subject. I have serious 
fears that if this bill should pass there would at once begin an agitation 
for the repeal or reduction of the tax upon whisky. The amount of 
M hisky in bond would begin to aecumulate; the problem Avould be no 
longer how to extend but lio^v to avoid altogether the payment of this 
000,(100. Indeed, one of the friends of this bill, M ho has advocated 
it ill an able argument, has boldly said that he desired lioth the passage 
of this bill and the entire remission of the unpaid tax. 

I do not regard it as my duty to aid either in giving aM ay to the dis¬ 
tillers or any one else any part of the revenue Mdiich has accrued to the 
(Government; noram I willing to give aid or countenance to any act 
M hich M’ould disturb the permanence of the internal-revenue system. 

During the past few days we have heard that system violently de- 
noMiiced from many quarters; but I do not believe that there is any 
gtmeral demand for its destruction. For more than twenty years the 
existing s^^stem has been in force. During thosedaysof civil war, Mhen 
the life of the nation Mas trembling in the balance, M'e could ill aftbi d 
to despise the hundreds of millions of dollars which it gave to the 
national Treasury. Nom- mc are at peace, it is true. We have a sur¬ 
plus in the Treasury, a surplus \vhich excites intoM'ild, sometimes gro¬ 
tesque, activity the desires and the imaginations of .some of the gentle¬ 
men on the other side. But still we are not rich enough, with national 
debt and .soldiers’ pensions yet unpaid, to give up to the distillers any 
portion of this tax, or to give up the system which has produced the tax. 

I know that in tlie early history of this Government it M^as consid¬ 
ered democratic to denounce the internal-revenue system. The Mnrds 
“odious,” “inquisitorial,” “detestable,” and “infernal,” which are 
repeated day after day on this floor, have an old and familiar sound. They 
come to us from the days of Shay’s rebellion against the whisky tax. 

But M e should not be governed b}' catch-M ordsand phrases after their 
significance has passed away. In those days the manufacture of M'hisky 
and alcohol M^as carried on in a humble M^ay in almost every region 
M'here corn and rye were produced. In the absence of railroads humble 
laborers manufactured their corn and rye into whisky and alcohol; arti¬ 
cles le.ss I)ulky and more easily transported to distant markets. 

But changes in the methods of transportation and-the operation of 
later laws have taken from the many and given into the hands of a few 
men the manufacture of whisky. 

The distillers Mdio are asking this leguslation at our hands do not distill 
theiiMvhlsky in the cellars and barns of the country districts as in former 
days. They are few in number. They belong to a rich and powerful 
moneyed .syndicate. They are residents of the great cities. They are 
the allies of the money kings. They are potential on the boards of 
trade. They are in close alliance Mfith the banks, as these dispatches 
testify. The tax on M'hi.sky can noM^ be collected of the feM’ manufact¬ 
urers Muthout any of that surveillance which once annoyed entire com¬ 
munities. I'know of no public sentiment in the Northwest against the 
rigid enforcement of the internal-revenue system. I know of no sen¬ 
timent M'hich is at all rebellious against the collection of the tax upon 
distilled spirits. 

I agree Muth others that there is a general demand for reduction of 
taxation. There is a widespread sentiment in the State in which I 


live that the onerous taxation upon the necessities of life which was 
created by the expenses of a great war should be reduced. 

That sentiment was voiced so loudly in the autumn of 1882 that a 
reluctant Congress was compelled to grant at least a show of acquies¬ 
cence. A tariff coiiimission had been ajiDointed. It was.constituted 
that a clear majority of its members were devoted to a high-tariff' polic 3 ’. 
After long investigation that commission had reported that a substan¬ 
tial reduction of tariff’ duties was demanded by the public interests. 

It was their opinion that there should be a reduction of not less than 
20 per cent, in the then existing rates, and they hoped that it would 
reiieh 25 per cent. Those who were responsible for the legislation 
which was finally enacted stated on the floors of Congress that the pro¬ 
posed reduction would amount to an average of 20 per cent, or more. 

I now quote from the report of the Committee on AVa.vs and Means, 
which has just been prepared; 

Your committee find that in the first six months ending Deeemher 31 
under act of March 3, 1883 (the new lawj, dvitiafjle merchandise was imported 
into tlie Uiiited States valued at $2.35,898,109, on wliich duties were paid amount¬ 
ing to $95,514,1.36, being 40.91 per cent, on the value thereof. In the correspond¬ 
ing six months of the year 1882, under the old law, the value of dutiable imports 
amounted to $“260,856,273, and the duty paid was $111,266,507, or 42.65 per cent, on 
the value. It thus appears that the average cost of importing goods valued at 
$100 was only $1.74 less under the new than under the ol<l law. 

This exhibit of reduction in rates made by act of March 3, 1883, amounting to 
1.74 percent, of the duty, is subject to an unimportant modification resulting from 
changes in value and other conditions, some of which increase and others re¬ 
duce comparative ad valorem rates. 

The promised reduction of more than 20 per cent, upon tariff’ taxa¬ 
tion has dwindled to less than 2 per cent.! 

When the bill came up for passage it was alleged by those who de¬ 
manded greater reduction to be the handiwork of the Eastern manu¬ 
facturers. The result would seem to prove the truth of that statement. 
It was undoubtedly framed in their interest and in .such a manner as— 

To keep the word of promise to our ear 
Aud break it to our hope. 

Ad valorem and specific duties were so intermixed and changed, the 
law was made .so complicated that none but those trained in the art of 
tariff-juggling could foresee the result. After this lapse of time the re¬ 
sults can be ascertained and they pre.seut one more triumph for those 
monopolies which have so long been potent in the legislation of this 
country. If I know anything of the sentiment of the people of the 
Northwest they are asking for that substantial reduction of taxation 
which the Tariff' Gommission and the last Congre.ss promised but which 
they ffiiled to give. They are not eager to pay a tax of 49 per cent, 
upon their sugar, of moye than 40 per cent upon their woolen clothing,, 
of 40 per cent, upon their cotton goods. They are unea.sy under these 
burdens which rest upon almost every necessity of life. 

\ye all know that the heavie.st burden of this taxation rests upon the 
agricultural clas.se.s of the W^e.''t and Northvv'est. It largely increase.s 
the cost of almost every article they buy. Its tendency is to close the 
foreign markets of the world to the articles they would .sell. If they 
complain they are told in substance that this sj^tem of taxation gives 
aid and comfort to the infant industries of Pennsylvania and Massa¬ 
chusetts, and that in good time the taxation will be reduced. But they 
do not forget that those .same “infants” were vigorous and healthy 


7 


when this century began, and that the older they have grown the more 
lustily they have demanded protection. 

In 1833 the friends of the high-tariff system consented to a compro¬ 
mise by which tariff duties should be reduced during nine years en¬ 
suing to 20 per cent, ad valorem, and that beyond that they should not 
be increased. More than fifty years have passed away. Now the aver¬ 
age tariff rates amount not to 20 per cent, but to about 40 per cent., 
and still every one of these “infant” industries is clamoring for more. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kelley], who is probably 
the most celebrated living champion of the protective policy, has told 
us during this discussion that we should abolish the tax upon whisky 
and get rid of the entire internal-revenue system, which he denounced 
as an “infernal” system. 

Of course the grounds of opposition to the tax upon whisky are ob¬ 
vious. If that tax of more than $70,000,000 per year can be reduced 
an equal amount of the sum derived from tariff taxation can be re¬ 
tained. A reduction of the taxation must come from some source. If 
that reduction is made in the whisky tax the present high tariff duties 
upon the necessaries of life will remain, because the expenses of Gov¬ 
ernment must be paid. 

I think I know something of the popular sentiment in the great North¬ 
west. If I am not entirely mistaken as to that sentiment, it is not at 
all in accord with the Pennsylvania idea, which Mr. Kelley no doubt 
understands and correctly expresses. That demand is indeed for a re¬ 
duction of taxation; but it begs for relief from taxation upon the neces¬ 
saries, not the luxuries, of-life. It asks Jfor that substantial reduction 
of taxation upon the articles of every-day use in every humble home 
that the tariff commission and the last Congress promised and pre¬ 
tended to give, but which has not come. In my judgment, if you will 
give this substantial reduction of taxation, if you will also add to the 
free list generously, if you will give to our people free salt, free sugar, 
free coal, free lumber, there will be no wailing or gnashing of teeth be¬ 
cause whiskj^ pays a tax. 

There is no article on earth better able to pay a tax than whisky. 
There is no general demand for the removal of that tax among the 
people whom I have the honor to represent. I am willing to stand 
upon the ground that this tax should be a part of the permanent rev¬ 
enue polic,y of our Government. It is no lonjier an exneriment. We 
have, b}" frequent changes of the law, already experimented enough. W e 
have learned wfith reasonable accuracy what amount of tax per gallon 
. will produce the maximum of revenue. At therateof20 cents per gallon 
the tax amounted to less than $12,000,000 per year. It was found that 
the tax of $2 per gallon afforded undue temptation to fraud and dis¬ 
honesty, and yielded less than $35,000,000 of revenue per year, while 
the present tax of 90 cents per gallon yields more' than double that 
amount. Still other changes have been made from time to time, and 
the results have shown that at present we are not likely to improve our 
revenues or our system of taxation by adding to or diminishing the 
present tax on distilled spirits; that the present rate of tax yields the 
best revenue and in every way the best results. 

If this view is correct we may as well announce by our action upon this 
bill that the distillers must accommodate their business to the existing 
laws. The expenses of Government would still go on if we should post¬ 
pone for two years the payment of these taxes ol more than $60,000,000. 


8 


To the extent that this money should fail to come into the Treasury 
where it belongs as part of the legitimate income of the Government, 
to that same extent we would be unable to reduce taxation upon the 
necessaries of life. 

If I believed that the refusal to pass this bill would cause the wide¬ 
spread bankruptcy which is predicted by its friends, I might be disposed 
to yield my objections. But I have no doubt but that this danger is 
greatly exaggerated. The same banks which have voluntarily aided by 
their credit this overproduction can extend their credit until the dis¬ 
tillers shall have gradually reduced the supply of their product to the 
demands of trade. This is the legitimate business of the banks. It is 
not at all the business of the Government. 

These are the considerations which have led me to oppose this bill in 
its various stages, and which now lead me to vote against it. 


The Tariff. 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON. BURR W. JONES. 

OF WISCONSIN, 

In the House of Kepresentatives, 

Tuesday^ May 6, 1884, 

On the bill (H. R. 5893) to reduce import duties and war-tariff taxes. 

Mr. JONES, of Wisconsin, said: 

Mr. Chairman: The history of i^olitics is full of illustrations of one 
fact that is, that the masses are not easily led away from those vital 
issues on which all great questions depend. The average common sense 
of mankind somehow sees through the rubbish of false statement, of 
abstraction, of prejudice, down to the live practical issue about which 
the whole contest turns. 

Some forty years ago there was struggle, memorable in English his¬ 
tory, in which the political economists deluged all England with facts 
and falsehood, with theories good and bad. If that had been possible 
the judgment of the common people would have been utterly dazed in 
the confusion of all the sense and nonsense, oratory, statistics, and liter¬ 
ature, poured in upon them. Meanwhile the multitude quite ignored 
the doctrines of former centuries. They gave themselves no trouble 
about the doctrines of the future. They decided that during their own 
day and generation one tax at least should be removed; that bread 
should go untaxed to the mouth of the consumer. Their will became 
law. The corn laws were repealed. 

In our own country there is now going on a struggle between con¬ 
tending views on the subjects of revenue and taxation. Extremists on 
both sides are seeking to direct the contest. There are those per¬ 
haps, though I doubt if there is one in this House, who would sweep 
away all duties upon imported goods. These extremists are so few in 
number or so widely scattered in this country as to be not easily found. 
And yet every man who asks for a reduction of taxation is described in 
some quarters as a free-trader. Then there are theorists and extremists 
of the other sect: those who seem to believe that international trade 
is a curse; that no good thing can come from abroad; that the ocean 
should be the uttermost boundary of commerce and not its highway; 
that taxation is not a clog and burden upon industry, but is its life and 



9 


motive power. Meanwhile the people who sent us here are not worry¬ 
ing about the abstract principles of protection on the one hand or of 
free trade on the other. Those principles must take care of themselves; 
and woe be unto either of them if it shall stand in the path of a great 
nation’s progress. 

While the theorists are contending among the clouds, those who sent 
us here are also contending, but over a very plain and an intensely 
practical question. That question is: ought the extraordinary taxation 
of the war period to be made perpetual in time of peace ? In this House 
we find ourselves divided upon this question. Our Republican friends 
are practically united in saying that there should be no change. They 
have voted against the consideration of the only bill brought before the 
House to reduce taxation. They will now seek to summarily behead 
the measure by voting to strike off the enacting clause. It is not merely 
that they oppose this bill; they ask no opportunity to amend it or 
make it better. They oppose all legislation tepding to reduce the 
present high taxation. A very large majority of those on this side of 
the House maintain that there ought to be a material reduction from the 
rates of taxation imposed by the tariff bill of 1861 and the other bills 
of the war period. We believe that the question now before us is the 
precise question which was submitted to the people of this country in 
the elections of 1882, that it will thrust itself upon our attention until 
decided upon its merits, and that it will down at the bidding of no 
monopoly or no party. 

I quote from the last report of the Secretary of the Treasury; 

Upon the estimate of $85,000,000 as the surplus for the current year, we find a 
surplus for that period of nearly $40,000,000 not wanted for the regular expendi¬ 
tures of the Government or for the payment of the national debt through the 
sinking fund. 

Again in the report he says: 

The estimates for the fiscal year ending June 30,1884, sho-w a surplus revenue 
of $85,000,000 per annum. This is enough to pay all the 3 per cents in about 
three and one-half years and before the close of the fiscal year ending June 30. 
1887. 

It will be remembered that after 1887 no other of the Government 
bonds can be called until 1891. They can only be purchased in the 
market and by the payment of a large premium. The Secretory esti¬ 
mates that this surplus will be increased year by year by the increas¬ 
ing population and swelling business of the country. 

In the elections of 1882 our people decided by an overwhelming vote 
that Congress at its last session had been derelict in not reducing taxa¬ 
tion. They condemned in no uncertain manner that Congress for spend¬ 
ing improvidently the public moneys instead of reducing the surplus 
revenues. At the last session ol' the last Congress, after the elections 
and the whirlwind, there was a pretended yielding to the imperative 
demand for reduction of taxation. Even Mr. Kelley, of Pennsylva¬ 
nia, was constrained to say “the present object, dear to the heart of the 
people, is to diminish an excessive revenue. ’ ’ The tariff commission¬ 
ers had recommended a bill reducing tariff rates on the average 20 per 
cent., and had stated that in their opinion the reduction would reach 
25 per cent. The same statement was made by the gentlemen who had 
in charge the tariff bill which finally became a law. In order to show 
how this promise has been kept, I will ask leave to print a short extract 
from the report of Mr, Ninimo, of the Bureau of Statistics. It tells its 
own story. 


3 


•I 




X 

ao 


«- s 

oT 

^ 00 
C 00 

1 ^ 

^ s 

Scs 

s 'H 
•2 § 


w .H 


'e 

(> 


Cm 

•S 

w ^ 

•S'g 

'C: -2 

S 


►o 

fe 

'W 

s 

'C: 


O 

Sh 






+ 



< 

•V 

o 

© 



X 

C 

o 

r- 

s 

H 

K 


• 


a> 

M-^X — — C^—(X«ct^ 1 


■v Ci 

ic 

taat^taOlOX—'■«!"t'»0 



'Tj*' 

O ?D 011 -'" CO q6 co' ^ oi co’ 

r^ *^01 

:e 

n 1 

1 

1 1 I I + 1 -H-++ 

> 




< 





^ O 

CO 

Cu0t>l0.--^,0 — Cil> 

00 X CO O lO ^ O 00 !M 

1 

IS 

GO 

s 

§'d 

^ g5 CO 


^Cicdci^xodococd 

"a 


o OS — af o c<» ic IN r^ 1 

■^--r-(C''IX — ■<?|-|© 

3 ii 

O 



! ^ 

1 + 

1 

++-H-1 1111+ i 


•« aH 

CO 

O'^OIWOXLCXOCO 1 
ClLOLOi-H^'5'ift'^O'^ 1 

X K *-H ^ O ^ X ic1 


1-^ 

do 

© 

1=:^ 

of 

CO 

00 o" of x" of x"of-H ‘ 

00 XOl CO X wo M O Ol 


t- 

1-^^XI^C»01XX'^ 


*C 

00 

—i' 01 r-i I-! oi 

> 



1 


1 + 

1 

++++I+IIII 

•p»;oaiioo 

?o 

C 00 Cl 

CO 

XX — ooit--Cir-xo 
r--o t>X C5 C5 o 1—* 

X^npjoa^BJ 



•-. cc ifi LO o cs' ic ss ec 00 1 

raajo['8A py 

CO 


I> o 

CO 

r-f Ci 1 —J O WO O X i 


1>C0 

eo 

— O—1©—it-'rfXt^lN 

o . 


1^ 

xt^wooi^oiot^xx , 

^ 'C 

S 01 o 

1 .V ^ oi 

pT 

CO i> K X 00 wd X o 01 »o i 
t^'aCXCiMf—XOXCO 

O 01 O r -1 X OM cc 01 

• -^1 

1 =§*‘-V 

oi 

o"' 

j C5^S5 

00 

1—i 1—iWO-^O-^OlOl 


6 

1 ^ 

oi oi 

O OI 

X 

S8 

WO 

O IN N W af X m O O 

-at^XCt^05C!iN(N ' 
o o ri ift X c IN i> o eo 1 

l^'s 

!S t'* 

o 

o 

t-* 

O ifS x" x x"^ X oi rf ^ \ 
^ ^ ^ OI X X <0'-f’O C> 1 
XOXt-HOOlLOCiX^ 1 

1 ^ 

^ o 

OI 

c^ 

OI 

of x" of —" of CO of 1 

01 — 01 ! 

i 

' 'pa^DanoD 
.<;np joa^BJ 
raaaoiBA p y 

Per ct. 
42.34 
62.17 

39.12 

?CC5Ci^^CsXCi01X 
— t-*l^?OOX'^01'^ 

id o ?£>' x* oi ^ ^ 

lOiOOlCCXW^'^wOt^'^ 

1 

« s 

o 

C5 

Ci 

WOCsOlOXOWOCOlO 
— X c OI LO o o *3 '*9* i> 
•^XOlOO'«?'t^CO — X 

© 

o 

b cTo* 

^ X 

^ 

of 

— CC ci X 3 

t^ot^-rroixcsoiooi 

O CSwiOt--XXl^01 

3! © 

C~ 

o'c? 

^ 1-1 (N 

of 

wo — — oi CO 

© 

3 

a3 

t^ — 

X 

5^01 X 

o 

OI 

C5 X O C Ci lO wo 01 
XOIXXWO—^QOll^ 
?Ci-«C5Xx — — xG0t>» 

s o' c-i 
Soto 

K a6 

cT 

C5 

o'wo O t^ Ci'x"—"x”^ 

»-H CO O C ^ c: OI l'^ O 
Olr-tWO'^OOi'^OlOllO 

> 

OI 

oi 

X 

r-i X*^ 01 ci wo 

OI — — 



< 


I 


©J 

S S 


s ^ 
© s 


i © a 


• t.A 

— SC ^ 




_ CO 

c5 C ^ 

« g i 

-H i 

^ - 
<o: 




’' © « s 

Va %_! <t-> •» 

O O 

X X X ^ 
© © © ^ 
U U U Z. 
.S 5 5 3 S 

3 ^ © aJ *3 -»a " 
:3 r- C, © © © a- 

^o6o===£ 

o s 3 S S 


© 

^ * 

J? O 

S.S 

.5 ^ 

S£-a 


2.1: 

Cx 


o 

3 

cr 
















































4 


( 

From this statement it would appear that the promised reduction of 
20 or 25 per cent, has proved a ridiculous failure. I ought perhaj)S to 
state that on page 9 of this report Mr. Nimmo states it as his belief that, 
owing to causes which I have not now time to repeat, the former report 
should be somewhat modified, and he estimates the reduction at between 

5 and 6 per cent. Whether his first estimate or his second is more 
nearly correct I do not know. In the first, the figures speak for them¬ 
selves and indicate a reduction of less than 2 per cent. In the second, 
the result is based upon a process of reasoning about the accuracy of 
which there may be differences of opinion. Suppose it be granted that 

6 per cent., the utmost that is claimed by any one, measures the amount 
of the reduction under the law of 1883, what would have been the 
answer of an indignant people if Mr. Kelley and Mr. Morrill had 
told the public that the bill would only reduce the war-tariff rates 5 or 
6 per cent. ? The leaders of the Republican party knew very w^ell, as 
did every one else familiar with public sentiment, that a proposal for 
so slight a reduction from the enormous war tariffs would have been 
received with almost universal contempt. They made the most solemn 
promises to reduce taxation, to relieve the people of at least 20 per cent, 
of their tariff taxation. No man pretended that less than that would 
be satisfactory. Every one agreed that the reduction should be made, 
and be made at once. Those in the minority asserted on this floor that 
the bill was the handiwork of the manufacturers; that it would not 
satisfy the popular demand. The minority sought, but in vain, to 
obtain much greater reductions than Republicans were willing to yield. 
Under these circumstances the bill was passed. The Tariff Commission 
was one expedient for delay; the tariff bill of last winter seems to have 
been little else than a second continuance of the people’s suit for a 
reduction of taxation. But the people are still demanding a trial on 
the merits. 

Thus far the results have shown that the people are not likely to 
receive any substantial relief from a party whose cardinal doctrine is 
high-tariff taxation. We who favor this bill charge that the solemn 
promises made to the people that they should have a substantial re¬ 
duction of taxation have been most flagrantly disregarded. The party 
which made those promises can make no denial of the charge. Men 
have only to read the pledges which were made by those who were re¬ 
sponsible for that bill and the reports of public officials of that party 
high in place to learn how freely the promises were made and how 
freely they w'ere broken. Not one-quarter of the long-sought and long- 
promised relief has been given. Now when the deficiency is demanded 
it is stubbornly refused. 

In the face of these solemn promises every man of every class still 
pays an average of nearly 40 per cent, tariff tax on the great mass of the 
necessaries of daily life; by the lowest estimate, 42 per cent, on his 
sugar; 33 per cent, on steel and iron, and manufactures thereof; 62 per 
cent, on his woolen goods; 39 per cent, on his cotton goods; 56 per cent, 
on his earthen and china ware; 55 per cent, on his glass and glassware. 

The survivors of the brave men who fought their country’s battles 
in the last great war are now on the downhill of life. Since the time 
when they responded to the solemn call of their country a new genera¬ 
tion of men and women have appeared. But the war taxes still re¬ 
main. They still wring from the earnings of every humble citizen his 
tribute not only to the Government but to the monopolies whose in¬ 
fluence has continued the extraordinary taxation of the war period long 
after its necessity has passed away. 

For years past the most liberal appropriations have been made for 


5 


all the needs of Government—appropriations so large that more than 
once they have been heartily condemned as extravagant. Yet, after the 
payment of all expenses, including pensions, the sinking fund, and in¬ 
terest on the public debt, the fact still stares us in the face that a large 
surplus remains in the Treasury, increasing year by year. 

Here is a plain, simple issue; one which every man can understand: do 
the peojde of this country desire ns to continue the levying of needless 
taxation year by year on the theory that Congress can be better trusted 
than themselves to spend their snrnlns earnings? Do they wish to 
pay for the necessaries of life 30 or 40 per cent, more than they are 
worth in the markets of the world ? And, if so, for what purpose ? Is 
it because they think it desirable that after the necessary expenses of 
Government are paid there should remain annually a surplus of fifty or 
sixty million dollars to invite fresh raids upon the Treasury? 

Those who believe in this policy may be right; yet it may be worth 
while to reflect that the $85,000,000 surplus referred to by the Secre¬ 
tary of the Treasurj'^ would have paid all the expenses of this Govern¬ 
ment in 1860 and there would have been some millions to spare. It 
would have paid more than four times over all the expenses of Govern¬ 
ment in the days of Jackson. Now' our expenses are more than $265,- 
000,000 per year, and they can be increased, the people may be sure, 
quite as rapidly as they may desire. 

If the people enjoy the policy of paying into the Treasury many 
million dollars each year more than is needed for the legitimate ex¬ 
penses of the Government, they have only to say the wmrd and that 
policy will be continued. So long as we continue the presenffrates of 
tariff taxation the surplus in the Treasury and an increasing surj^lus 
will be the necessary result. Nor will Congress find any difficulty in 
expending that surplus if public sentiment shall indicate that it is 
regarded as a blessing to be continued. The Kepublican Senate have 
already sent us a bill appropriating $77,000,000 for educational pur¬ 
poses. That snug little sum is to be collected from the w'hole people 
if we shall approve the bill, and then is to be filtered back through the 
several States to be expended, not evenly, but in the ratio of illiteracy. 

There are other ways in which Congress could easily enough expend 
such money as the American people may fancy they do not know how 
to spend themselves. The president of the Mississippi River Com¬ 
mission says that it would be a good investment to expend $75,000,000 
in improving that river. The friends of the proposed Hennepin Canal 
can suggest a way to use divers and sundry other millions, when the 
people become quite certain that they are going to enjoy forever the 
high tariffs and the high taxation that Mr. Kelley and the other 
leaders on the other side are determined to perpetuate. 

Congress ordinarily appropriates six or seven millions per year for the 
erection of public buildings. There are bills before ns at this session 
asking for about fifteen millions for this purpose. I trust that we shall 
see to it that a goodly x>ortion of them do not pass; but yet if w'e felt 
certain that those who sent us here are longing to have us spend their 
surplus earnings, we could erect magnificent buildings of rare archi¬ 
tectural design in a hundred cities. 

% I understand that the annual river and harbor bill is to be rexx)rted 
in a few days and that it will ask for about twelve millions and a half. 
That is undoubtedly more than wmuld be asked but for the plea made 
every day that we have a plethoric Treasury. 

If the people iirsist upon the policy of paying this large surplus into 
the Treasury year by year the Government engineers can find manifold 
ways in which to spend it. They can find a thousand rivers to be 


6 


dredged and as many harbors to be created. Behold the beauties and the 
consistency of the high protective system ! It has practically driven 
the American flag and the American ship from the high seas. It has 
left our foreign carrying trade at the mercy of England. Only 16 per 
cent, of our foreign commerce is carried out in American bottoms, 
whereas twenty-five years ago the proportion was 66 per cent. 

The system looks with jealousy and distrust upon the approach of 
every vessel to an American harbor if that vessel brings any product 
which could be manufactured in the United States. The entire sys¬ 
tem is adapted to drive away those vessels and those products, espe¬ 
cially if they be cheap, and yet with lavish appropriations of public 
moneys it improves and opens with one hand the same harbors which 
with the other it seeks to close to the commerce of the world. 

High tarifis mean high taxation. A tax is a tax all the same whether 
paid to the tax-collector in bulk or whether paid in driblets day by day 
at the store and shop, in the form of higher prices for sugar, cotton 
cloth, boots, hats, blankets, lumber, and all the necessaries of life. It 
is still a tax, and it lessens by so much the substance of him who pays 
it. Those who would maintain th,e present high taxation and high 
tarifis insist upon large appropriations. The latter follow as the nat¬ 
ural sequence of the former. Our Republican friends on this floor 
fought long and ably to add to the postal appropriation bill and to the 
naval bill several million dollars more than we believed to be neces¬ 
sary. They accepted their failure in no merry mood. From the be¬ 
ginning of this session until this hour they have voted in almost solid 
phalan^^o increase the expenses of Government and against reduction. 
I do not say this in any spirit of criticism, but I state it as a fact known 
to us all. They vote for large expenditures, not because they like ex¬ 
travagance, but because they are wedded to the system of high-tarilf 
taxation. 

That system produces large revenues, which in turn result in large 
expenditures, just as inevitably as the waters of the swollen river find 
their way to the sea. The issue has never been so clearly drawn as 
now. We who favor this bill assert that taxes, whether direct or in¬ 
direct, should not be levied beyond the proper wants of Government; 
that a large surplus revenue should not be collected from the people 
either to be divided partially among the States or to be wasted in need¬ 
less appropriations; that the true way in which to dispose of an ex¬ 
cessive revenue is not to collect an excessive revenue, but to leave what¬ 
ever is not needed for the legitimate expenses of Government with the 
people, where it belongs. Any other system is not protection in any j ust 
sense, but is extortion pure and simple, and none the less odious be¬ 
cause under the guise and pretense of law. We believe that the pres¬ 
ent surplus should be immediately cut down by a reduction of taxation; 
that the promise made to the people in the last Congress, though not 
made by us, should be sacredly kept. 

If this reduction of taxation means protection, I am for protection. 
If it means free trade, I am for free trade. I support the Morrison bill 
not because it squints toward protection, nor because it squints towaixi 
free trade, but because it is the only measure before us promising a re¬ 
duction of taxation and of the surplus revenue. I believe that this larg^ 
surplus revenue is a standing menace to honest administration. It is 
a temptation to every hungry lobbyist. It gives new strength and vigor 
to every weak and antiquated claim against the Government. It fires 
the imagination of every crank and excites the cupidity of every knave. 

All history teaches that an excessive revenue tends to make extrava¬ 
gance the fashion and frugality unpopular. 


The every-day expenses of Government are now more than four times 
the expenses of 1860. Deducting the items of pensions and interest on 
the public debt, and they are still nearly two and a half times the ex¬ 
penses at that period. Is it desirable to check this rapid increase of 
public expenditure ? There is one way, and only one way, to accomplish 
that result: it is to limit and reduce taxation. Any other method 
will prove a delusion and a snare. 

The people whom I have the honor to represent are intelligent enough 
to dispose of their own surplus earnings. I can not believe that they 
care to yield that privilege into the hands of this or any other Congress. 
I have every reason to believe that they would glad y see such a sub¬ 
stantial reduction of taxation as the last Congress promised but did not 
give. The only question then remains, how shall that reduction be 
made ? Mr. Kelley and those who follow hi m would exclaim, ‘ ‘If you 
must reduce taxation, abolish your odious internal-revenue system ! 
Take off the tax on whisky and tobacco ! ’ ’ That is the programme 
of protection, the programme of the Republican party. I am sorry 
to say also that it is the programme of Mr. Randall and the few pro¬ 
tection Democrats who are threatening to form an alliance with Re¬ 
publicans to defeat this bill. 

On the other hand, we who support this bill believe that it is more im¬ 
portant to give the people cheap sugar, cheap salt, cheap clothing, and 
cheap lumber than it is to give them cheap cigars and cheap rye and 
bourbon whisky. lam already committed by my action in this House 
to the policy of maintaining the internal-revenue system. If, then, I 
am to favor a reduction of taxation there is but one alternative, and that 
is to sustain the reduction of tariff duties. It is because this bill prom¬ 
ises a substantial reduction of those duties that I give it my support. 
During this long debate the measure has encountered every form of criti¬ 
cism. Among other things it has been charged that the bill is inoppor¬ 
tune; that it follows too quickly after the tariff bill of last year. 

No measure can be inopportune which proposes in a fair and mod¬ 
erate manner to reduce excessive taxation. We have waited long enough 
to learn that the tariff act of last year was a hollow pretense. If this 
bill should become a law the reduction of tariff rates would be no 
greater by the operation of both laws than was promised by Republi¬ 
can leaders as the result of the former law. 

Then all promised that a substantial reduction should be made. This 
bill is nothing more than an attempt to pay 100 cents on the dollar of 
that repudiated debt. 

It is charged, too, that the Morrison bill is illogical because it proposes 
a horizontal reduction of taxation; because it proposes to reduce indis¬ 
criminately one-fifth of the tariff tax from nearly every article on the 
list. 

Any objection of this kind applies with equal force to the existing 
tarifi’ laws. We concede that the present tariff laws are so full of 
absurdities that no process of addition or subtraction can change their 
inherent defects. 

The inequalities of the present laws have long been., the subject of 
just complaint. When the poor man looks for the symmetry of the 
existing tariff laws he will find that he has to pay a tariff tax of more 
than 40 per cent, on his sugar, while his wealthy neighbor pays only 
35 per cent, on the sweetmeats imported for his more favored table. 
The carpenter or farmer pays more than 100 per cent, bounty on the 
rice for his breakfast table. If the millionaire imports his fancy jellies 
and sauces he pays only 35 per cent. The blacksmith and the farmer 
pay a duty on their daily salt of 73 per cent. The more favored gentle- 


\ 


8 

man whose labor consists in spending his inherited wealth also contrib¬ 
utes to the general weal by paying 10 per cent, upon his diamonds. 

The poor man’s family pay upon their worsted goods a tax of from 
70 to 90 per cent. The rich man’s family pay for their embroideries of 
silk only 50 per cent. This is what is meant, I suppose, by a discrim¬ 
inating tariff. 

When the laboring man begins housekeeping he is taxed on the dishes 
which he buys nearly 60 per cent. When wealth and fashion prepare 
for the ball, they are taxed upon their jewelry, but only 25 per cent. 

When the day laborer builds his home he pays a tax upon his window- 
glass varying from 55 to 70 per cent. Perhaps he ought to do so cheer¬ 
fully, especially when he learns that the millionaire for whom he toils 
pays his share of tax; that is, he pays for the paintings on glass, the 
statuary and porcelain in his mansion, a tax of 30 per cent. 

The farmer or mechanic in Wi.sconsin is taxed for his jeans or denims 
about 40 per cent. Mrs. Vanderbilt or Mrs. Astor returns from a Eu¬ 
ropean voyjige with her European trousseau costing $5,000 or $10,000 
or $15,000, and pays not a cent. 

I might go on, if time permitted, almost without limit showing the 
sjunmetry of the present tariff and with what tenderness it protects the 
poor man! 

There is one w’ay in which to make the present revenue system sternly 
logical and consistent. That is, to adopt the unadulterated protection 
policy; to abolish the tax on spirits and tobacco. Then you would 
have that system in all its glory; the sy^stem which would tax to the 
utmost the necessaries of life, but would make luxuries free as air. 
Under that system fixation would rest with leaden weight upon the 
shoulders of the poor and middle class, while the rich wmuld be as far 
as possible freed from all contact with such vulgar cares. We have 
gone quite far enough toward such logic and such perfection. When 
the gentlemen who criticise the Morrison bill as illogical and unscien¬ 
tific wall point out a better plan we will follow it wath pleasure. We 
will join them any day in an attempt to thoroughly revise the old law 
and to lop off its defects. But they make no such proposition. They 
expend their patriotism not in suggesting any better legislation, but in 
denouncing the only plan before us to reduce taxation. The Morrison 
bill in no way impairs any semblance of symmetry that may be found 
in the present laws. 

It proposes a very moderate reduction of the tax on all those articles 
which enter into use and consumption in our every-day^ life. It singles 
out no one indu.stry or monopoly for attack, but says to all the protected 
industries you must now surrender to the common people a small part 
of that tribute the law^ has so long exacted in your behalf. This small 
abatement on each article of the w^ar-tariff taxation will in the aggre¬ 
gate swell to a large measure of relief, amounting, it is estimated, to 
$35,000,000. 

One gentleman seemed to think that he had deeply buried this bill 
beneath the criticism that it is so simple and plain that, as he expressed 
it, any car-driver could have drafted it. If it is a plain measure, it is in 
striking contrast with those tariff bills which the manufacturers have 
heretolbre presented for the ratification of Congress; bills so complicated 
that they w^ere neither understood nor intended to be understood ex¬ 
cept by the experts wdio drew them. Those wdio wish to continue high 
taxation by skillful indirection are not expected to find any virtue iu 

bill which only pretends to reduce taxation in the fairest and simplest 
aay. 

( who have no interests to be protected by special legislation, 


9 


those who pay the taxes, may not find it such an insuperable objection 
to this bill that its provisions are plain enough to be comprehended by 
common men. 

We all know what kind of a bill would be prepared by the gentlemen 
who ridicule the simplicity of this one. They would begin their work 
by announcing with some flourish of trumpets their intention to satisfy 
the desire dear to every American heart by a l eductiou of taxation. 

In order to place their work far above the comprehension of the com¬ 
mon mind, they would begin by adding three or four new classes to 
the schedules of woolen, cotton, and iron goods. They would reduce 
slightly an ad valorem rate here and there, but would not forget to 
increase at the same time the specific duty on the same article. They 
would occasionally change the duty from ad valorem to specific or the 
rever.se. 

After the lapse of a year the public would perhaps find that all relief 
had been delayed for a year at least, and that a reduction of 1 or 2 
per cent, had taken place, but that it had been made in a very scientific 
manner, and it would prove entirely satisfactory to the “business inter¬ 
ests;” that is, to Pennsjdvania. 

In currency questions a few years ago all became familiar with the 
.saying, ‘ ‘ The way to resume specie payments is to resume. ” We who 
vote for this bill act upon the principle that the way to reduce taxa¬ 
tion is to reduce, and with as little circumlocution as possible. 

An intelligent public will not lose sight of the fact that this bill would 
not reduce the tarift' rates below those of the Morrill bill of 1861. It 
will not be forgotten that the act of 1861 was formed to produce large 
revenues for the emergencies of war, and that it met the approval of 
the manufacturing interests as a high protective tariff. It will be re¬ 
membered that as the rates were afterward still more increased, it w'as 
with the understanding, often expressed in Congress, that they should 
be reduced -when the emergencies of war should pass aw'ay. There 
w'as another reason iissigned for the increase of the tarift' rates far above 
those rates which had been maintained in peace, namely, that the long 
list of internal taxes greatly increased the cost of manufactures, and 
that the increased tariff rates were in compeu.sation for this new burden. 
It was promised by those who urged this reason for higher tariffs that 
tho.se tariffs should be reduced when the direct and internal taxes should 
be removed. If there were time, I could read copious extracts from 
the speeches of such leaders as Senator Moerill to verify this statement. 
The direct and internal taxes thus affecting the cost of manufactures 
have long since been removed, but the manufacturers now seem utterly 
oblivious of the pledges by means of which the high war tariffs were 
obtained. 

By every rule of fairness and good faith the manufacturers ought 
long before this to have consented to a reduction from the enormous 
bounties which the laws passed under those circumstances have so long 
exacted. But it is and has always been the curse of any system of 
favoritism in government that the recipients of favors will inevitably 
beggar the liberality on which they feed. 

At the beginning of our Government, when manufactures were in¬ 
deed in their infancy, they had such protection as was given by average 
tariff rates of about 8 per cent. Under the Walker tariff of 1846, a 
tariff under which manufactures and commerce enjoyed a prosperity 
unparalleled in the history of this country, the average rates were only 
about 23 per cent. Under the circumstances and by the pledges I have 
already mentioned the tariff rates of the war period were obtained, and 
they have been to this time maintained to the standard of about 40 per 


01 


cent. It would be only a graceful and manly observance of their 
plighted faith if the protected industries would voluntarily reduce their 
bounties to the standard of the wants of peace. 

But they enjoy these bounties quite as well in robust manhood as 
when they were in tender youth. 

A glass manufacturer recently told me that the manufactory in which 
he is interested in New Jersey had existed for more than one hun¬ 
dred years. During most of that period that industry has had the aid 
of so-called protective tariffs. The logical tarift' bill of hist year did 
not diminish but increased the rate on this youthful centenarian in¬ 
dustry. It will also be observed that the tariff law of 1883, which 
was ushered in with the announcement of reduction, increased the 
duties on cotton goods and earthen and china ware, although it could 
scarcely be claimed that those industries were either feeble or of recent 
growth. 

The manufacturers engaged in these industries which have been pro¬ 
tected for nearly a century do themselves and their own enterprise great 
injustice in this claim that the}' can only live as the petted favorites of 
Government. Those industries are not the w'eaklings that such a theory 
would imply. Our exports of manufactures for 1883 were about $112,- 
000,000. And this, too, desi)ite that narrow commercial policy which 
discourages to the utmost all foreign trade. 

It is an interesting study to trace the wanderings and the destina¬ 
tion of our American goods. American furniture is finding its way into 
the quaint old homes of the Japanese. Those steady-going, conserva.- 
tive people are wearing American boots and shoes and handling Ameri¬ 
can tools. The New Zealanders are making woolen goods with ma¬ 
chines which Yankee ingenuity has invented and American workmen 
have constructed. American-made sheetings are used by the tawny 
Madagascans, and the cotton drillings, sheetings, and jeans turned out 
of American factories are welcomed in the staid old empire of China. 

American clocks are used almost the world over. Their familiar 
faces welcome the American traveler whether he be wandering in Zan¬ 
zibar, Bogota, or Canton. For years American glass has been crowd¬ 
ing its way into those old cities of Germany which have long claimed 
supremacy in that industry. It is well known that the Swiss w'atch- 
makers for seven or eight years past have been anxious lest they should 
be driven from their own markets by the wonderful progress of Amer¬ 
ican skill. The pauper labor of Europe is well represented in broken- 
down old Spain and Portugal, yet our American labor sends to those 
ports its products of chemicals, glass, cotton, and other manufactures. 
American cutlery finds its way into Dresden and Berlin, and the new 
American stoves are transported beyond the seas to be sold into the old 
German homes. 

In the long list of exports from young America to antiquated Egypt 
you will find almost infinite variety, from the boot-jack to the cotton- 
gin, from the ax to the wind-mill, from the paper collar to the bill¬ 
iard-table. We have not only competed with the English trade in cot¬ 
ton goods in India, China, Africa, and South America, but the New 
England cotton fabrics have contested their ground on the soil of old 
England and in the very streets of Manchester. The gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Eaton] comes from a protection district, and well 
represents that seutiment. These are the words used by him on this 
floor: 

Talk about the cotton of which my shirt is made. There is 50 per cent, duty 
on that cotton. And it can not be made anywhere on God’s great earth except 
n New England; it can not be made for the same money anywhere else. I 


II 


know it, I assert it; I defy contradiction from anybody and anywhere. Take 
the Collins axes, that have driven the English axes out of England, and Scot¬ 
land, and Ireland, and the Swiss ax out of Switzerland, and yet there is a duty 
of 50 per cent, on the Collins axes, made in my county, their office under mine. 
There is not an ax that can be .sold anywhere on the face of the earth in com¬ 
petition with the Hartford ax, and yet they pay—permit me to say, to meet the 
argument of my friend fi-om New York—they"pay for what is called raw ma¬ 
terial, and it is not raw material; it is material, but it is not raw. They pay duty 
on their iron and steel, and yet make an ax which has driven every manufact¬ 
urer of every other country out of the market. 

And yet when we seek to reduce the tariff duties on such articles as 
these the manufacturers denounce us with one acclaim. If these state¬ 
ments of the gentleman from Connecticut are true, and they undoubt¬ 
edly are true, the articles he names should go upon the free-list without 
one day’s delay. It is noticeable that among the industries which are 
sending their wares to the farthest quarters of the globe are those which 
have never had any benefit from the protective policy. The American 
wagons, carriages, sewing-machines, plows, reapers, steam-engines, and 
other tools and machines are so far superior to those of other nations 
that they have needed no protection at home and have been troubled 
by no competition. The tariffs have hampered them at everj'^ step by 
adding to the cost of the materials entering into their production. Not¬ 
withstanding this embarrassment they are being carried thousands of 
miles beyond the seas to almost every foreign land. Complaint comes 
to us from many foreign cities that the American trade-marks on their 
goods are being stolen and counterfeited on the imitations of those who 
can not compete with Yankee skill. 

Those who insist upon that high-tariff policy which tends to exclude 
foreign trade have but a w’eak conception of the destiny of American 
manufactures and American commerce. 

We have such natural advantages for manufacturing as are possessed 
by no people on the face of the globe. England sends to the four quar¬ 
ters of the globe for her-raw material. We have ours cheaper and easier 
of access than any nation on earth. The natural and rapid growth of 
our population and the opening up of the great West wdll inevitably 
give birth to manufactures. Those manufactures will spring up wher¬ 
ever new homes are made and new cities founded. They are the neces¬ 
sity of civilization. Statutes can neither make nor unmake them. 
They will be such manufactures as are needed and such as will pay. 
They will be conducted on business principles and will not look to Con¬ 
gress for the breath of life. Such manufactures there are to-day all 
through our Western States. Those manufacturers have not learned to 
haunt the room of the Committee on Ways and Means. They do not 
enjoy the great bounties which the people are compelled to pay to the 
manufacturers of iron, but they have a healthy and prosperous business, 
depending upon the natural laws of trade. 

Meanwhile those great manufacturing industries of the East, which 
for nearly a hundred years have been receiving bounties at the hands 
of the whole people, should commence in earnest their contest for equal¬ 
ity in the markets of the world. New railroads are linking us more 
closely to the vast fertile regions of Mexico and South America. We 
are united to those countries by such ties of interest and sympathy that 
our manufacturers could practically control their markets if they should 
use in that direction half the skill and effort which they devote to tariff 
legislation. In every civilized nation there is a demand for the genuine 
products of American skill in the place of those clumsy imitations of 
European manufacture which now largely take their place. The pres¬ 
ent high tariffs hamper the manufacturer who would seek this foreign 
trade at every step. The tariffs on the raw material of course greatly 


12 


enliance the cost of the finished product and thereby render more diffi¬ 
cult competition in the foreign market. They drive from our porte 
those who would gladly exchange their goods for the products of Ameri¬ 
can skill. 

Those great industries vrhich have so long enjoyed protection, with 
all their wealth and with their almost perfect machinery, should now 
prepare to cease their trading and lobbying for legislative aid. The 
history of these last twenty-three years of enormous tarifts has well 
illustrated the evils of the system to which they cling. 

Under such a policy there comes a brief period of prosperity. For two 
or three years manufacturer are almost bewildered by their prosperity. 
Stocks pay large dividends, and even wheu watered command enor¬ 
mous premiums. Manufacturers erect their palatial homes. Extrava¬ 
gance runs riot in the prosperity which gives no sign of its quick decay. 
Meanwhile overproduction follows as surely as night follows the day. 
There comes after a time a lull in the unnatural production; dividends 
cease; stocks are at a discount; banks begin to fail; inflated prices drop 
as far below their natural level as they had risen above. The million¬ 
aires of yesterday are the bankrupts of to-day. Laborers are driven 
from their employment to fight the hard battle with poverty and want 
during the weary months, and until the overstocked market needs to 
be filled anew. 

The dazzling but transitory prosperity which such a policy gives to 
the manutacturer maybe fascinating to him; it may account for the 
eagerness with Avhich he begs for a continuance of the system, but it 
is a policy which builds up colossal and sudden fortunes for the few; 
which dooms the man}’’ to that condition in which they are not certain 
even of the poor chance to toil for their dail}^ bread. 

It is not in these great extremes of success and disaster that a people 
find any lasting basis of prosperity. When manufacturers shall learn 
to depend upon the great laws of trade, of supply and demand, and 
not upon the unnatural and uncertain stimulus of legislative aid, there 
will be that regularity of production and that certainty of employ¬ 
ment at steady and moderate wages which are the real guarantees of 
prosperity both to capital and to labor. 

For nearly a hundred years the manufacturers of the East have been 
claiming and receiving bounties on the ground that they were young and 
feeble industries. They begin to realize that the infancy argument is 
becoming ancient. And they are now seasoning the old argument with 
the newer one, that high tariffs and high taxation arenece.ssary to give 
good wages to the laboring man. They seize hold of the fact that wages 
are higher in the United States than in Europe, and claim with cool 
assurance that this is caused by the tariff laws. Wages are higher in 
this country, I am glad to say, than in any country in Europe. Doubt¬ 
less the nominal difference is far greater than the actual difference, 
owing to the greater purchasing power of money, where the necessaries 
of life are cheap, as in Europe. 

I am Avilling to concede what some do not concede, that is, that the 
laborer here can obtain more of the comforts of life in exchange for his 
earnings than can be obtained by the laborer in England. I believe 
this to be true norv and that it has been true during the whole history 
of our Government; that it was equally true when tariffs were high in 
England and when they were low in the United States. 

The same causes Avhich have in the past given us higher wages than 
those of Europe will I have no doubt operate ui the future in the same 
manner, iind they rvill be but little affected by any system of taxation 
or tariffs we may adopt. Our German and Irish fellow-citizens have 


13 


left their native lands, where more than two hundred people are crowded 
upon one square mile of land, to find more room and cheaper homes. 
The cheap lands of the United States are a refuge not only to the crowded 
nations of Europe, but they afford an outlet to the laborers of every in¬ 
dustry in this country. No man can be very long compelled to work 
for inadequate wages in free America so long as he can have his own 
fertile farm from the Government on the single condition that he will 
go and possess it. The standard of wages is high for this reason if for 
no other. The laborer is independent. The workingman of Chicago 
can say to his employer ‘ ‘ Give me better wages or I will take my home¬ 
stead in Dakota. ’ ’ The workingman of Manchester or Berlin has no 
such easy refuge. To him a change means either idleness or a long 
journey to a foreign land. 

The fertile fields of our single State of Texas would furnish a home 
to every man, woman, and child in the United States, and still would 
be less thickly settled than Great Britain and Ireland. We shall no 
doubt have our trials and our troubles as a people, but the problems of 
an overcrowded population and of pauper labor are not likely to disturb 
the American people until many generations shall have passed away. 

There need be little fear of cheap or pauper labor in the United States 
if we allow labor and industry to follow their natural channels. If, 
howevei, we attempt to coerce labor into unprofitable employments, if 
we close our doors to foreign trade, if we make it impossible for other 
nations to bring their goods in exchange for the surplus products of our 
farms, if we hold out that false stimulus to production which floods the 
home markets with a surplus to go begging for purchasers, we may be 
sure that the tendency of wages will be on the downward scale. 

Such a policy is the fruitful cause of strikes, of idleness, of discontent, 
of all those evils which result when thousands of laboring/ men are 
turned out of employment and know not where to look for their daily 
breiid. If high tariffs insure high wages how is it that in England, with 
free trade, wages are considerably higher than in any country of Europe 
where the high-tariff policy prevails ? How is it that the condition of 
the laboring man in England has steadily improved since the time when 
the high tariffs were swept away? There was a time when the labor¬ 
ing poor of Ireland and England were told by the protectionists that 
high tariffs meant high wages and low tariffs the degradation of labor. 
The great Irish orator Daniel O’Connell answered this j)roposition in 
Covent Garden forty years ago. I have only time to quote a part of 
that memorable address; 

But, then, out comes another landlord “leaguer,” a man of the league for 
making bread dear, another protectionist, another robbery man; hesay.s, “ Oh, 
don’t make bread cheap ; that would be horrible ! ” This man .says “ it would 
be horrible to make bread cheap, for if you did there would be less employment 
and lower wages.” We will see how that is. If the bread were cheap you 
would get it cheap by getting corn from foreign countries, where it is grown 
cheaply, but from whence it can not be imported noAv. What is the conse¬ 
quence ? If it had been imported, then for every pound’s worth of corn that you 
obtain a pound’s worth of your manufactured goods aa'ouM be sent out to pay 
for it. Those who had not formerly the means of paying for your manufactures 
would now have them, because you would buy their bread. So that, instead of 
lessening employment, it would increase it; and then it is as clear as that two and 
two make four that you must also have increased Avages; therefore the argu¬ 
ment totally fails. Why, I speak from my own knoAvledge of Ireland and as 
one of the representatives of Ireland, and I say that if the corn laAV Avas of any 
use anywhere it would be valuable in Ireland, Avhich is essentially an agricult¬ 
ural country. If that enactment raised wages anyAvhere it Avould do so in a 
country purely agricultural. But are Avages raised iu Ireland in consequence 
of its existence ? Oh, no! for, unhappily, you can get men to Avork there for 4d. 
a day. [Shame !] The laborer thinks he is a bountiful benefactor who pays 
him 6d. a day; and he feels supremely bles.sed if he gets 8d. a day. 

There is the effect of the corn law for you! It is in full force in Ireland and 


14 


doing all it can for that country, and yet this is the state of wages there; and 
what is worse, there is very little employment for the laborer even at these 
rates. Tlierefore the people of Ireland and those of the gentry who take a 
conscientious view of affairs and are kind to the people regard this matter in 
the same light that I do; so that instead of Ireland being an impediment in the 
way or one of your difficulties [laughter] you have the people of that country 
heart and soul at your side. [Cheers.] I declare to you that the injustice and 
iniquity of the landed aristocracy overcome me with horror and loathing which 
I can not describe. Why, if there was no corn law now existing, and the min¬ 
isters were bold enough to bring in a bill to tax the people’s bread ; if they 
placed, as they do in some despotic countries, a man at the door of the baker- 
shop to insist on one-third part of the price of the bread, which the baker would 
of course be obliged to charge to the consumer—if this were attempted there 
is not a man in the country who would endure such a tax. It would be of no 
avail for the minister to say, “I want the money for my financial plans; I can 
not make the year’s account balance unless I have such a tax.” John Bull 
would roar out, ‘‘No! tax anything else you please, but you must not tax 
bread.” Yet by the swindling scheme of ‘‘ protection,” as it is called, they do 
the very same thing. They ta.x the bread, not for the good of the state, in which 
you might all equally participate, not for protection against a foreign enemy or 
to keep domestic peace, but for the benefit of one particular class. All the rest 
of the community are taxed that that tax may not go into the pur.se of the pub¬ 
lic, but that it may go into the pockets of private individuals. [‘‘ Hear! ” 
“Hear!”] 

The common people of America are not asking for cheaper bread, it is 
true, but for cheaper salt, cheaper clothes, cheaper coal, cheaper sugar, 
cheaper lumber. The same argument which demanded cheaper bread 
for oppressed Ireland demands cheaper goods for overtaxed America. 

If high tariffs insure prosperity to the laboring man, how is it that 
in the United States during the last twelve or fifteen years, while 
tariffs have been not only protective but in a large degree prohibitory, 
labor has had so precarious an existence ? How is it that labor strikes 
have been so common as to scarcely excite attention; that manufact¬ 
urers readily accept the theory of horizontal reduction in wages, thdugh 
they abhor it in the Morrison bill ? Why are more than two-thirds of 
the furnace fires extinguished and the men who live by them out of work ? 

I take the liberty to quote a few paragraphs from the able speech of 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hewitt] who is himself a manu¬ 
facturer, and who has well improved his opportunities of studying the 
effect of tariffs on the condition of the laboring man. He says: 

When I learn that there are miners of iron ore Avorking in the State of Penn¬ 
sylvania for 75 cents a day, then I know that there is something wrong in the 
legislation of this country, for the duty upon iron ore was put up by the last 
tariff' act on an average from 40 to 45 cents a ton to 75 cents a ton in order to pro¬ 
tect these very miners and to give them high wages. When tluit act was passed 
they were in receipt of $1.25 a day; to-day they are in receipt of 75 cents a day. 
Surely, if there be vii'tue in legislation these men, hard-working, industrious, 
independent voters, if you will give them the means of living, ought not to have 
been reduced to this wretched state of misery. 

But the end is not yet. The owners of these great coal-mines have recently 
met in conference in the city of Philadelphia, which my friend so ably repre¬ 
sents, and Avhich I trust he may continue to represent for many years to come— 
they lately met and solemnly came to the conclusion to suspend work for three 
days in the week, and after this month they concluded that possibly they might 
keep up the price of coal by suspending work only nine days in the month. 
Keep up the price of coal! Ay,to the workman,to the farmer,to everybody 
who earns his living by his daily labor, and put down the wages of the man who 
digs it from the earth, and then tell him that he is protected by the tariff". Can 
there be a more stupendous specimen of audacious assertion than we have heard 
upon this floor, that the workmen of this country are well rewarded and made 
happy by the operations of the tariff? 

It is conceded on every hand that overproduction by the great industries 
is being followed by its inevitable reaction; that a large proportion of the 
laboring men in those industries have been compelled to live in idleness 
or to seek new employments. Why should we by excessive taxation 
continue a false stimulus to production when the markets ar.e already 
full, and when many of the manufactories are already idle ? 


15 


The whole situation is a warning to manufacturers that they must 
look elsewhere than to Congress for relief. AVhen they have filled the 
home markets with the products of their almost perfect labor-saving 
machinery they must send the surplus abroad. Fourteen hundred 
million people are ea,ger to get their goods, and eager to get the prod¬ 
ucts of our farms; but if w^e give them grudging and unwelcome en¬ 
trance to our ports, they can go elsewhere. 

It requires no great foresight to see that if this narrow policy is too 
long persisted in it will inevitably result in driving the European con¬ 
sumers of our grains and meats to India and Australia for their supply. 
Already the great nations of Europe are becoming impatient with the 
policy which treats their goods as unwelcome intruders. 

If we should crowd them to the policy of leaving our surplus grains 
on American soil we w^ould very quickly aw'ake from our delusion that 
American labor is for America alone. 

There is something deeply affecting in the solicitude of the Eastern 
manufacturers for the laboring man. 

They send their agents to Congress year after year to ask j ustice for 
the laborer. They well-nigh double the normal price of their goods 
because they so love the laborer. They are eloquent and liberal—in 
printers’ ink—in the cause of labor. I have not heard that in their 
prosperity they make any division of dividends with the laborer, but 
we ail know that the laborer never fails to share in their misfortune. 

It is w’ell known that these gentlemen have a great aversion to the 
pauper labor of Europe, and that they delight to expatiate upon its 
evils. They often seek to demonstrate that American labor can not 
compete with this hated European pauper labor. 

They have lately taken to demonstrating this theory in quite a prac¬ 
tical way; that is, by importing the pauper labor they so despise. It 
will be seen from the testimony taken before the House Committee on 
I^abor that the manufacturers rather enjoy the pauper labor of Europe 
when it appears on American soil. It is not distance but nearness that 
‘ ‘ lends enchantment to the view. ’ ’ By thus bringing the pauper labor 
among us the manufacturers are enabled to relieve American laborers 
and to materially lighten both their toil and wages. Let the testi¬ 
mony speak for itself. 

Mr. Barclay said: 

“Paul O. I)e Esterhazy,'Austro-Hungarian consul in New York, has acknowl¬ 
edged the existence of such an agency, but says he is unable to do anything in 
the matter. The class imported by the coke manufacturers are the lowest beings 
tiiat have ever been in the State of Pennsylvania, subsisting upon what an 
American laborer could not eat—such as mules, hogs, &c., which have been 
killed or died with cholera and other diseases. Not one has ever been known 
to become an American citizen, but all return to Hungary within a limited time 
(about four years) with what money they can save by living in this miserable 
condition of filth and squalor. Women and children work, too, drawing coke 
and forking coke into cars, commencing work about 1 or 2 o’clock a. m., and 
returning to their shanties as late as 7 p. m., working through all kinds of 
weather from two to five days per week. They seldom sleep in beds, but lie on 
the floor, with a board or a stick of wood under their heads, as large a number 
probably as forty in one house intended for a miner with an average family, 
one female serving about ten men in all relations between male and female, 
housewife and laborer, in the coke-yards. They are not known to purchase any 
of the luxuries which tend to elevate and enlighten the people, living in filth and 
wretchedness, but hoard up their small earnings, which they promptly forward 
to Hungary, thereby draining our district of the circulating medium. Being 
low in the scale of intelligence, they are the willing slaves of the coke manu¬ 
facturers, willing to submit to almost any conditions. 

“ One of the tricks of the manufacturers is to import these people for the pur¬ 
pose of evading the laws enacted for the protection of the laboring classes. 

“The ‘check-weighman law’ is an example. The people being unable to 
read and write, they promise them 30 cents per wagon of one-half ton each, but 
when they arrive here they are compelled to sign an agreement, making only 
18 cents per ton for mining. 


16 


“ I have known these beings during the time of the strike to have been dragged 
from their homes and driven down into the mines by the managers and coal 
and iron police. I have also known them to have been knocked down and 
kicked under cars for refusing to do more contract work. In all, they are 
mere tools by which the manufacturers gain almost any point they d^ire, to the 
degradation of our native workmen and the detriment of our busines-s men, 
Dtaking tramps of the former and bankrupts of the latter.” 

'William Ashton, of Philadelphia, Pa., W. G. VV. A., said; 

” My information is in regard to importation of foreigners to Baltimore, Md. 
These men were brought under a contract; they were window-glass blowers. 
The first importation took place in 1879; forty-eight were then brought over by 
Swindell Bros. The following year Baker Bros, imported seventeen. King Bros, 
twenty-two, and Swindell Bros, twenty-three. The first importation occurred 
during a strike; there was no strike when the second importation occurred. 
Some of the foreigners refused to work and were arrested, but discharged before 
a hearing was had; their clothing was retained by the firm and it was weeks 
before they could secure it. They were kept locked in houses when not work¬ 
ing, and could not be seen by the A mericans. Most of them have since returned 
home, some being sent by the Glass-Blowers’ Association, and some by the Bel¬ 
gian consul, who complained bitterly of the treatment they receiv'ed. The 
eflect of their importation was the reduction of wages about 12 percent. An 
injunction was issued against the American workmen from interfering with 
them and made perpetual by Judge Brown, of Baltimore. Before these men 
were imported we had as good a set of American workmen as could be found 
anywhere. The system in vogue in Europe and America diflers materially. 
The Europeans Avork according to old methods and processes; in fact, they 
bring their tools and molds with them. The European workman cannot turn 
out within 35 per cent, as much Avare as the American Avorkman, and as a result 
do not or are not able to fulfill their contract, hence the employers are at liberty 
to pay them what they please.” 

John Schlicker, of Pittsburgh, Pa., W. G. W. A., said : 

‘‘The labor of AVindow-glass blowers isA'eryhard; but few men are able to 
AV'ork at it after the age of 45 years; the aA’erage is but 35 years. In consequence 
of the exhaustiveness of the labor, Ave decided to not make more than forty- 
eight boxes of glass per week, which amount is more than ‘200 per cent, more 
than Avhat was a Aveek’s work some years back. This limit of forty-eight boxes 
is a good AA'eek’s Avork. To break this limit was the purpose of the importation. 
These foreigners could not make this amount, and consequently could not ful¬ 
fill their contract, and AA^ere, therefore, subjected to its penalties for failure. One 
lot of men that Avere brought to Kent, Portage County, Ohio, Avere not employed, 
as the glass-house Avas not started, and these poor men and their families were 
left destitute in a foreign land and in a hostile community, a charge on the 
public.” 

******* 

‘‘The difference in working in the glass industry in this country and Europe 
consists in the fact that there they haA'e tAvo factories and Avork eleven months 
a year. I have Avorked in glass Avorks for thirty years and have not aA'eraged 
eight months per year in that time. The ditference in wages is not material, 
when all things are considered, betAveen this country and Europe. At Kent, 
Ohio, these imported men are working on Sunday.” 

Mr. A. C. Robertson, of Pittsburgh, Pa., said: 

‘‘The number of foreign glass-bottle bloAvers brought to the Western States 
under contract is about eighty in all, distributed in live factories, namely : La 
Salle, Ill., thirty-six; CoAungton Ky., thirteen; Louisville, Ky., fourteen; the 
balance in Streator, Ill., and NeAv Albany Ind. They receiA’e about 40 per cent, 
less Avages than American bloAvers, or, in other Avords, they get 8 cents per dozen 
for quart beers, Avhile the American gets 13 cents per dozen. The eff ect of this 
competition Avill be to bring the native workmen doAvn to the level of pauper 
labor. The hollow-glass Avorkmen Avest of the Alleghany Mountains have not 
worked since la.st June. They haA'e been, during all this time, enjoA'ing the 
luxury of a lockout. Last years’ revision of the tariff virtually increased the 
duty on green glassware nearly lOOper cent., but notAvith.standiiig this increase, 
the manufacturers are endeavoring to force a reduction of 20 per cent, in Avages. 
Previous to the reA'ision there was an importation of about 200,000 gross of boG 
ties. Since the neAV tariff Avent into effect there has been scarcely any importa¬ 
tion of this ware. Two American bloAA’ers Avill turn out eighty dozen bottles 
per day, while two of the foreign blowers turn out bht fifty dozen per day. The 
manufacturers seem to faA'or free trade in labor and a high protectiA'e tariff upon 
their manufactured goods or Avares.” 

The manufacturers of Pennsylvania and New England are men of 
far-reaching s^anpathies. They are moved by deep solicitude not only 
for their employed, but for the farmers of the West. It is noticeable 
that their zeal for him expends itself in liberally taxing him, and they 
have abundant arguments to convince him that taxation is not a bur- 


1 


17 


den but a relief. They survey their swelling bank accounts, their 
brown-stone fronts, tlieir blooded horses and liveried servants, and ex¬ 
claim: “Blessed is the tariff, blessed is taxation—for the farmer.” 
Heretofore they have so far controlled the taxing power as to impose a 
tax on the lumber, the nails, the glass, the iron, that go into his house 
and barn. They teach him by liberal taxation to appreciate the salt, 
the sugar, the si)ices, the rice, the molasses, the dishes, the knives, the 
forks, the glass which go upon his table. In order to sweeten his daily 
toil they tax the material which goes into his plows, his wagon, his 
harness, his reaper, his drill, in fact every implement or tool for which 
he spends his hard-earned money. 

In the list of over 3,000 dutiable items there will be found almost 
every article which the farmer has to buy for the house or for the farm, 
for sickness or in health. The tax-paying never ends until the long 
sleep begins. 

The average of this taxation is only about four dollars on every ten 
paid by the farmer for the necessaries of life. The farmer is supposed 
to pay this tax from day to day with a lively sense of gratitude because 
the manufacturers have consented to a tariff upon his wool. This is 
the poor price which is expected to lead the farmer into alliance with 
monopoly. 

I understand that it is claimed by the wool-growers that they were 
duped and betrayed by the manufacturers in the provisions of the tariff 
law of last year. I do not know how well-founded this claim may be. 
If those who represented the interests of iron, cotton, and woolen manu¬ 
factures proved more successful in obtaining legislation than the wool- 
growers whom they had professed to take into the alliance, it is not 
the first time that the monopolies have postponed the interests of the 
farmers to their own. 

The true interest of the wool-growers lies not in the direction of alli¬ 
ance with the advocates of excessive taxation, but in breaking the 
power of that combination which compels them in common with all 
other agriculturists to pay daily tribute to the capital of the East. 

The farmer must understand that a high tariff on wool means a high 
tariff and high taxation all along the line. If the farmer wishes to be¬ 
come the advocate of high tariff taxation and of class legislation, it is 
his privilege. He may enter into partnership with the monopoly if he 
will, but when the accounting comes he will look in vain for profits. 
In my judgment the average farmer pays far more for the enhanced 
cost of woolen goods alone than he receives in the way of increased jirice 
for wool. 

The Madison Democrat, a newspaper published in Wisconson, states 
the account very well, and I will quote from the article its conclusion: 

At the end of the year Mr. Coldfaets, who prides himself on keeping track of 
things, posted up his accounts with protection. It stood thus: 


Protection in account with Coldfaets: 

cu. 

By tariff on wool, say. S5 00 

DR. 

To tariff on lumber. 10 00 

To tai'iff on nails. 1 50 

To tariff on glass. 1 50 

To tarift' on woolen goods. 50 00 

To tariff on carpet.. 10 00 

To tariff on tools. 15 00 

To tariff on sugar... 2 00 

To tariff on sundries. 30 00 


Total. 120 00 

Jo-2 














18 


Thus Farmer Coldfacts found that thou«?h he was frugal and plain, confining 
his purchases'to the mere necessities of life, he and in common with himself the 
wool-growers of Wisconsin, paid out $24 for the protection of other industries 
where they got $1 back by the highest tarift'on wool. 

The farmer is the natural enemy of excessive taxation. However 
otliers may escape the burden, he has to bear it. He has no large blocks 
of stocks or bonds which can be skillfully shifted or concealed I'romthe 
assessor’s view. 

I have said enough to show that the tariff duties are so devised that 
they crowd upon the farmer at every hour of his existence, and that 
they seem designed to rest but lightly on the rich. Can it be possible 
that the masses of the people do not desire a reduction of these surplus 
and useless revenues? We could reduce taxation much more than 
$35,000,000 per year, and still have abundant revenues for every need 
of Government. I should not regard it as a calamity if the revenues 
were reduced much more than is proposed by this bill. If there should 
arise an emergency calling for greater revenues we could easily supply 
them by a judicious income tax. A tax levied upon those who receive 
large incomes from their professions or from accumulated wealth would 
correct many of the irregularities which now exist. 

Gentlemen who oppose this bill need not flatter themselves that its 
defeat will stay the agitation now going on. The real issue is already 
before the peojile. They are wondering how the public good is advanced 
by the hoarding of many hiillion dollars in the Treasury; how it is that 
they are compelled year after year to pay this surplus revenue into the 
hands of oflicials who constantly report that they have no use for it. 
There may be enough representatives of the manufacturing interest on 
this side, joined with the solid vote on the other, to prevent the pas¬ 
sage of this measure. Butin my judgment the public will hold to a 
strict account the men who will not raise a hand to lower the excessive 
taxation which has come to us as the inheritance of the war. You will 
strike out the enacting clause if you can, but do not indulge the vain 
hope that it will give you peace. 

Said William H. Seward in the Senate of the United States: 

You may slay the tyilmot proviso in the Senate Chamber and bury it beneath 
the Capitol to-day, the dead corse in complete steel will haunt your legislative 
halls to-morrow. 

The opposition threaten by to-morrow’s vote to slay this bill. They 
may succeed in doing that, but let them not delude themselves that 
thereby they will very long delay or very greatly inj ure the cause of 
revenue reform. They may strike out the enacting clause; they may 
thus behead and bury this bill; but if so, out of its grave will rise other 
bills. Its ghost will haunt these Halls, and it may be the political lives 
of those allied to destroy it, until the demand of an indignant people 
is obeyed, until an excessive revenue no longer exists to burden the 
people and to temj)t their servants. 


O 


Agricultural Appropriation Bill. 




SPEECH 

O F 

HON. BURR W. JONES, 

OF WISCONSIN, 

In the House of Eepresentatives, 

Saturday, April 5, 1884. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and 
having under considei-ation the bill (H. R. 5261) making appropriations for the 
Agricultural Department for the fiscal year ending June 30,1885— 

Mr. JONES, of Wisconsiu, said: 

Mr. Chairman: I wish to make a few suggestions concerning some 
•of the features of this hill. 

It will he noticed that under the division of ‘ ‘ agricultural statistics ’ ’ 
it is proposed to appropriate about $134,000. I have every reason to 
suppose that the work of gathering these statistics is carefully done, and 
I know personally that the results of the work are eagerly sought by the 
farmers. Every day’s mail furnishes me ample evidence of that fact. 
I only wish that I could supply a quarter of the demand which exists 
in my large and Xiopulous'district for the books and the seeds furnished 
by the Department of Agriculture. 

The suggestions which I have to make will be in the line of making 
this appropriation of the greatest use to the greatest number. We do 
not pay out this large sum of money simply that the Commissioner and 
his corps of assistants may gather up facts and figures and experience 
for future use. We pay it out to obtain the best fruits of their labors in 
order that the entire community may also enjoy their benefits. In the 
past the annual reports on agriculture have been principally the means 
of bringing the labors of the Department to public attention. Those 
reports no doubt serve a good purpose, and should probably be contin¬ 
ued ; but they reach only a small jiroportion of those who would gladly 
obtain them. 

I wish to call attention to these smaller monthly reports, one of which 
I now hold in my hand. They have never been widely distributed and 
their usefulness is not generally known. 

During the past year I have taken occasion to examine them, and I 
know that they treat of subjects which are of vital importance to every 
farmer in this country. They are filled with useful facts concerning 
the best methods of cultivating and producing various crops; concern¬ 
ing the acreage of crops at the East and at the West. One I notice is 






a report upon the numbers and values of farm animals. Others relate- 
to the success or failure of different crops in different sections in this 
country and in Europe. Under the provisions of law each one contains a 
statement of the freight rates upon different railroads. Every one of 
these little cheap reports contains informatioil which would be wel¬ 
comed in the home of every reading, intelligent farmer who speaks the 
English language. My suggestion is that these little reports, which if 
printed in large quantities would cost only a few cents each, should be 
so generally circulated as to thoroughly disseminate whatever the De¬ 
partment of Agriculture may gather that is worth knowing. In this 
way the public will have the benefit of the $134,000 appropriated for 
their good. . 

It is true, sir, I have noticed in some of these reports that the Com¬ 
missioner mixes heresy with his facts. The Commissioner would per¬ 
haps be more than mortal if he should entirely forget politics and the 
beauties of a protective tariff. But I am willing to leave it to the hard 
sense of the farmers to settle their own theories. I would like to have 
them given the facts and figures which these reports contain, and they 
can separate the chaff from the wheat. Now, there is only one objec¬ 
tion which can be urged to the generous printing and circulation of 
these reports, ,and that is a matter of expense. I examined last eve¬ 
ning the last report of the Public Printer to ascertain what information 
I could give the House upon that suljject. There is no reference to 
these reports, but I did find reference to other matters in which I be¬ 
came interested, and which will be of interest to the gentlemen of this 
House. That report convinces me that either we are amply able to 
print and circulate very widely these little pamphlets and other inex¬ 
pensive documents, or else that our system of public printing is waste¬ 
ful and prodigal in the extreme. 

And in passing allow me to say that in my judgment if this same 
report of the Public Printer were to be placed in the hands of every 
one of our constituents there would be an overhauling of this business 
of public printing very soon after the next election. 

Let me call attention to a few of the more conspicuous of these ex¬ 
penditures. 

The printing of the second annual report of the director of the Bureau 
of Ethnology costs $34,500. The third annual report costs the same. 
From page 28 of the report of the Public Printer it will be seen that 
the printing of the works just referred to, together with that of other 
works on ethnology, is estimated to cost the little sum of $140,600. 

How deeply our constituents are interested in this subject of ethnol¬ 
ogy Idiave not had time to ascertain, nor do I know how many of them 
have ever had the honor of seeing or admiring these expensive volumes 
for which they have all contributed to pay. 

Again, the printing of the final report of the Geological Survey, vol¬ 
ume 3, cost $44,235. Of this there were 6,100 copies, costing more than 
$7 per copy. It seems that the expense of printing the Geological Sur¬ 
veys enumerated in this report of the Public Printer amounts to about 
$110,000. I regard this expenditure as less open to criticism than any 
which I shall refer to, and yet I very much doubt whether the public 
generally will believe it necessary to expend so great a sum in this di¬ 
rection. It has cost also about $40,000 to print the History and the Geol¬ 
ogy ol the Cbmstock Lode. Whether these publications were more 
valuable jis contributions to science or as an advertisement of the Com¬ 
stock lode I am unable to say. The printing of one of them cost more 


- / 


3 


« 

than $7 per copy; and if those copies have been distributed it has been 
about in the ratio of one to each 11,000 of our people. 

A little farther on in the report appears the statement of the cost of 
printing Hayden’s twelfth annual report. Of this there were 11,900 
copies, which cost $103,802, or more than $8 per copy. It ought to 
be a valuable work. The Public Printer tells us that the engraving 
and lithographing alone cost $63,470. Perhaps one citizen in each 5,000 
is its favored possessor. But it must not be forgotten that every tax¬ 
payer who follows the plow, or who is a wage-worker in the shop or the 
manufactory for his daily bread, pays his share of this expense. 

I doubt, sir, if it is quite consonant with the spirit of our institutions 
'' to expend these large sums of money in this manner. I am confident 
that whatever may be valuable in these publications might have been 
preserved, and might have been far more widely disseminated than it 
has, by an expenditure of one-quarter of the money which they have 
cost. If some one had the time and inclination it might be an interest¬ 
ing pursuit to trace out the history of these rare volumes, to see where 
they go and whose property they become. But this is a subject over 
which the tax-payer can meditate to his heart’s content. 

There may be some defense for a part of the expenditures to which 
I have alluded. But I now come to another class of publications for 
which I assert there is no justification whatever. I find there is re¬ 
ported an expenditure of about $40,000 for the printing of eulogies in 
honor of deceased Senators and Members of the Forty-seventh Congress. 
This is a custom which should either be abandoned or extended. If it 
is a wise and judicious expenditure of the public moneys it should not 
be confined alone to those whose associates have the power of appropri¬ 
ating public money. If the practice is to exist at all, there is every 
reason that these eulogies should also extend to those not members of 
(Mngress who have been distinguished in public life. A little more 
than a year ago a distinguished citizen of Wisconsin and of this Repub¬ 
lic passed away. He had been for nearly twenty years a Senator of the 
United States. He had rendered his country eminent service abroad. 
At the time of his death he was a Cabinet officer. I have not heard that 
Congress caused eulogies to be printed in his honor at public expense. 
He needed no such eulogies. His long, eminent, and unsullied public 
career w£is eulogy enough. The same may be said of every distinguished 
man whether in public or in private life. 

It may be gratifying to members of Congress to pay this tribute to 
the memory of their associates. But that is not the only consideration. 
If the public moneys were our own we could use them in a thousand 
ways in paying graceful tributes to thousands of worthy men. 

I am satisfied that the public would not if they fully understood it 
approve the expenditure which this custom now involves. 

I might allude to other expenditures in the public printing which if 
generally known would, I have no doubt, attract attention. Perhaps 
some of the other items are even more open to criticism than those which 
have been mentioned. 

What I have said is in no partisan spirit and with no intention to do 
injustice to any man; therefore it should perhaps be said that the Pub¬ 
lic Printer is not responsible for the incurring of these expenditures. 
The last Congress was responsible. We of this Congress will also be 
responsible if we continue them. 

Nor have I called attention to these abuses—for I believe them to be 
abuses—with any intention of discouraging the printing of such docu- 



4 


ments as are required by a proper regard for the public good. The Gov- 
eruTuent properly has its bureaus of statistics. Citizens willingly pay 
their money to support them. Nor would they begrudge the money 
which should be expended in printing and giving these statistics wide 
and generous circulation. 

' The money expended in printing one of the books to which I have 
referred would have printed millions of these little pamphlets which 
contain information that every intelligent farmer would be eager to 
obtain. There are sent to each member of Congress four or five of these 
little reports each month for distribution; last month I received five. 
This would be perhaps one for each 30,000 of my constituents. In my 
judgment $200,000 of these expenditures reported by the Public Printer 
were unnecessary. That sum of money could have been expended in 
printing less expensive documents, which could have been generally 
distributed among all classes of people, rich and poor alike. I have 
referred more particularly to the agricultural reports because this bill in 
part relates to those. But what has been said concerning these is equally 
true of other publications which are and might be printed by the Gov¬ 
ernment. The consular reports are filled with facts concerning the in¬ 
dustries and progress of other nations which would be gladly welcomed 
in almost every American home. 

It must be borne in mind, too, that the massive volumes of census 
reports which are being prepared and published at great expense are 
not acces.sible to the mases. There could be printed Statistical abstracts 
of these reports at comparatively small expense, abstracts which would 
contain the pith and substance of the larger reports, and which might 
take to the homes of the common people the information which their 
money has helped to collect. Those who have always enjoj’^ed the ad¬ 
vantages of the great city libraries can have but little conception of the 
satisfaction which sucli books as I have mentioned would give to those 
whose lives are spent in their country homes. Half of my life has 
been spent upon a farm. I know that as a rule books which have 
merit and which go to a farmer’s home are appreciated, and the}’- ])ear 
their fruit. 

My complaint is that the Government should appropriate toward this 
printing fund such magnificent sums for a favored few and such a pit¬ 
tance for the masses. 

I would gladly see some of the money which has heretofore been dedi¬ 
cated to extravagance in public printing devoted to other purposes. 
We have many thousands of constituents who would gladly receive 
such documents as w'e could print and send without extravagance. 
They would not demand elegant bindings; they would not expect those 
magnificent engravings for which they have had to pay, but on wdiich they 
have never gazed. 

These plain, inexpensive, but u.seful publications wmuld bring to the 
farmer’s home information which would place him more nearly on a 
level with those of whom he buys and to w’^hom he sells. They would 
dignify and sweeten the laborer’s toil. They would give the honest 
ambition of his boys and girls something on w’hich to feed. 

I ask not greater expenditures, but expenditures so directed as to 
instruct and please an infinitely greater number of men and women. 
The changes which I suggest may not come in a day, but I am confi¬ 
dent that the present system can not be of long duration. 

O 


CAN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AID 
THE STATES IN EDUCATING THE PEOPLE? 


SPEECH 

OF 

HOK C. W. JONES, 

OT" FLORIDA, 

IN THE 

SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 


Friday, March 21,1884, 


ON 


THE BILL (S. 398) TO AID IN THE ESTABLISHMENT ANTp 
TEMPOBARY SUPPORT OF COMMON SCHOOLS. 


WASHINGTON. 

1884. 







SPEECH 


OF 

11 ON. CHARLES W. JONES. 


The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, having- under consideration the 
bill (S. 398) to aid in the establishment and temporary support of common 
schools— 

$ 

Mr. JONES, of Florida, said: 

Mr. President: I desire to say a few words in regard to the question 
that was debated here yesterday touching the power of Congress to grant 
this relief, if it may be so called. I am not of the opinion of my dis¬ 
tinguished friend from Missouri [Mr. Vest], who thinks we must find 
authority for a measure of this kind in the general-welfare clause of 
the Constitution. We have had, I think, enough of discussion about 
that; but I think there is ample authority in the Constitution for the 
passage of this bill. I am not speaking now of its details, nor do I in¬ 
tend to speak of its details; but I speak of the power of the Government 
under the Constitution as now existing to aid in the work of public edu¬ 
cation. 

It must be recognized that a great fundamental change was effected, 
whether for good or evil, by the amendments to the Constitution; that 
there has been somewhat of a revolution, constitutionally speaking, by 
the ingrafting of those amendments on the Constitution must be ad¬ 
mitted by everybody who has reflected upon the subject as all. When 
I say this I .say nothing but what the Supreme Court has said; and while 
I am not one of those who are overanxious to cite its opinions here to 
guide us in our deliberations, still I think they afibrd sufficient evi¬ 
dence to persuade us at times to reach right conclusions. 

I have often said that the Supreme Court has no more right to bind 
us than we have to bind the Supreme Court in the administration of 
the Constitution. Still they have told us what was meant by the re¬ 
cent amendments to the Constitution. They have told this country 
that by those amendments the persons formerly known as slaves in the 
country became by its operation citizens of the United States. Before 
those amendments it is well known that a citizen of the United States 
was so because he was a citizen of a State, but the fourteenth amend¬ 
ment reversed all that. It declared to the country that every person 
born in the United States, every naturalized person from that time 
onward should be a citizen of the United States and of the State wherein 
he resided. The Supreme Court in the Slaughter-house case, 16 Wal¬ 
lace, decided that a person could be a citizen of the United States with¬ 
out being a citizen of a State. This is new law to me, but I am not 
responsible for it; it is the result of the amendments to the Constitu¬ 
tion. 





This change in the organic law reversed the old order of things, and 
we have accepted it. I do not intend to argue from that any great ex¬ 
pansion of power, but I Say a great government like this, which has 
changed its organic law to meet a condition of things exceptional in 
its character and which has produced such important results must have 
power to pass this bill. 

Mr. VAN WY€K. May I ask the Senator a (piestion in the line of 
his argument? 

Mr. JONES, of Florida. Certainly. 

Mr. VAN WYCK. Does he concede the power of Congre.ss to impose 
the discharge of certain duties upon State officers ? Has the revolution 
of which he speaks gone to that extent ? 

Mr. JONES, of Florida. I think it is a very familiar principle in our 
jurisprudence under existing laws for .duties of a Federal character to 
be imposed upon State officers, and they have been from the foundation 
of the Government. If the Senator will examine the Revised Statutes 
of the United States, although I have not had time to look into them 
and am not prepared for such interrogatories as that, he will find that 
in many instances State officers are required to perform Federal duties. 
A State magistrate may examine a person who violates a Federal law 
and commit him in some instances. There is nothing in that. The 
State officer may decline. The courts have held that tlie Government 
of the United States can not absolutely impose upon him a public duty 
but he is at liberty to discharge it if he desires to do so. 

Mr. DAWES. I ask the Senator if he apprehends as a practical 
question any difficulty in inducing the State officers in that part of the 
country from which he comes to exercise the duty imposed by the bill. 

Mr. .TONES, of Florida. None in the world. 

Mr. V'AN WYCK. That is rather begging the question, I suggest. 

I asked the question whether the Senator concedes the power of Con¬ 
gress t') direct the execution of a duty by a State officer, to compel him 
in the discharge of his duty? I want that constitutional question 
settled. 

Mr. JONES, of Florida. I do not think that question is involved at 
all in this matter. I was saying when I was interrupted by the Sena¬ 
tor from Nebraska that I did uot find it necessary to go to the general- 
welfare clause for authority to pass this bill. Five million persons who 
before this great change in the Constitution were nothing but chattels 
were transferred from property into free people, lifted up to the full 
standard of citizenship, without any preparation, without any training, 
and, in many instances, without any qualification.' The foreigner who 
lands upon our shores is required to remain five years before he can ex¬ 
ercise that privilege. Why ? At one time it was twenty-one years, but 
under the inspiration of a wise and liberal democratic policy, thanks 
to the early fathers of the party for it, the liberal spirit in the early 
part of the century brought it down to five years. 

Why was that five years required ? As a state of probation, of cult¬ 
ure, of training, of education before the foreign-born man could exercise 
the privilege of citizenship in this great country. Still this great change 
in the Constitution and the laws passed in pursuance of it took this 
5,000,000 of people out of a state of slavery where they and their ances¬ 
tors had been for two centuries, and lifted them up to a level with 
other citizens in the Union so far as political rights are concerned. 
Without the least disposition at the time to do these people injustice, 
I felt that it was an unwise thing. I felt that in the course of time the 


t 




right oi sulli’iige would follow the right of freedom, hut I was not pre¬ 
pared for so sudden and so radical a change. But now that it is accom¬ 
plished I mean to do all in my power to maintain that right and to 
make the people who have it qualified to exercise it. 

Gentlemen on the other side speak about the South asking this and 
asking that. 1 know of nobody on this side of the Chamber who is 
asking for this bill. I know of some opposition to it here. But the very 
Government that did this thing now comes forward and proposes to help 
to educate those people, and I say it is just as little as they could do. 
There is no question of State-rights involved in this, there is no ques¬ 
tion of local authority here. These people owe their present status to 
this change in the organic law which made them citizens of the United 
States, and if there is anything in the reason of the law or in our sys¬ 
tem of jurisprudence it is that the legislative arm of the Government is 
always competent to carry out its organic provisions. The Constitution 
of the United States having made citizens and voters out of 5,000,000 
of slaves, and cast upon the people of the States the duty of educating 
them for the exercise of political power, surely there can be nothing very 
unreasonable in the Government of the United States aiding the States 
in educating these people. 

Where do the States get authority to legislate for their citizens? 
Would it not be an anomaly to contend that a State could create a cit¬ 
izen, invest h'im with all the vigor and force and jTOvver of suffrage, bring 
him into life, raise him to the full standard of a full-fledged political 
character, and after it placed him there could not move another step? 
The States did not create these people citizens, but this change in the 
organic law of the Union did, ratified by the States. 

Mr. COKE. Will the Senator from Florida permit me to ask him a 
question ? 

Mr. JONES, of Florida. Certainly. 

Mr. COKE. I ask him if the States did not change the organic law ? 

Mr. JONES, of Florida. Yes; the States did it and gave this power 
to the General Government;, and every power that the General Govern¬ 
ment possesses to-day was derived from the same source. Here is what 
the Supreme Court of the United States said in the Slaughter-house 
cases, speaking of the great change in the fundamental law, to which I 
call the attention of the Senate: 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the juris¬ 
diction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they 
reside. 

The first observation— 

Say the court— 

we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the'questions which 
we stated to have been the subject of difierences of opinion. It declares that 
persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship 
of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all per- 
.sons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the 
United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the 
negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase “subject to its jurisdiction ” was in¬ 
tended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens 
or subjects of foreign states born within the United States. 

The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel 
in the present case. It is that the distinction between citizenship of the United 
States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established. (16 Wal¬ 
lace, 73.) 

That* is the doctrine of the Supreme Court interpreting the fourteenth 
amendment. I say, having invested these people with this right, admit 
as has been charged that this measure is a measure of relief for these 


<> 

peoi>le, here yon have the authority of the Supreme Court, vrhich says 
that tiiese great organic changes were brought about to give tliis class 
of people the rights they now have. Under this provision of the Con¬ 
stitution many very harsh laws have been enacted and enforced, laws 
that I have never assented to and would not assent to; but when I find 
a beneficent provision like this one, brought forth to aid in the culture 
and the educational advancement of the people thus enfranchised by this 
great organic change, I shall not oppose it. I do not go to the general- 
welfare clause, but 1 go to those clauses in the Constitution which 
worked this remarkable revolution in our constitutional system as stated 
by the Supreme Court, and which transformed 3,000,000 of men from 
chattels into free men and invested them with all the rights of Amer¬ 
ican citizens. » 

This is not the first time that Congress has been called upon to do 
something in the intere.st of education. The lawyer who can draw a 
distinction between the granting of one sixteenth section or a thirty- 
sixth section of land to aid in the cause of common-.school education 
and the granting of the money equivalent to that land can refine more 
than I am able to do, and more than I ever Maint to do in the Senate 
of the United States. It is always interesting to go back to the early 
stages of our own history for example, when there were great lights 
worthy of being followed. 

It is well known that by the treaty of 1763 between Great Britain 
and France it was agreed that the Mississippi River should be regarded 
as the western boundary of the British American colonies, and at the 
close of the Revolutionary war all the territory lying between the Atlan¬ 
tic on the east and the Mississippi on the west and the lakes on the north 
and the thirty-first parallel of latitude on the south was included in the 
lines of the thirteen original colonies. Those limits embraced a vast 
area of the most valuable land on this continent. Out of that terri¬ 
tory numbers of prosperous States were formed, including the one rep¬ 
resented by the distinguished Senator from Ohio [Mr. Sherman], not 
now in his seat, who said that he was not willing to trust Virginia or 
any of the States of the South in the disbursement of this fund. 

Mr. PLUMB. Mr. President- 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Florida yield 
to the Senator from Kansas? 

Mr. JONES, of Florida. I would rather the Senator would not in¬ 
terrupt me. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida declines to 
yield. 

Mr. JONES, of Florida. I will say to the Senator from Ohio that 
the better portion of the most valuable territory at that time lay within 
the acknowledged limits of Virginia under her colonial charter. We 
know the trouble that arose at that early day for fear that Virginia 
would have more than her proportion of the public domain in conse¬ 
quence of her rights as a colony. With a generosity unparalleled in 
public history or among the States she ceded that vast domain for the 
benefit of all the other colonies and dedicated it to the use of the States 
that might be created out of it. In her deed of cession she incorporated 
this provision: 

That tlie lands within the territory so ceded to the United States, and not re¬ 
served for or appropriated to any of the beforementioned purposes, or disposed 
of in bounties to the officers and soldiers of the American Army, shall be con¬ 
sidered as a common fund for the use and benefit of such of the United States as 
have become or shall become members of the confederation or Federal alii- 


\ 



ance of the said States (Virginia inclusive), according to their usual respective 
proportions of the general charge and expenditure, and shall be faithfully and 
bona fide disposed of for that purpose and for no other use or purpose whatso¬ 
ever. (Act December 20, 1783.) 

The grant was carried out in that way. It went to enrich the States 
that were carved out of it, and was used for school purposes and other 
purposes of a general character to build up the population of the various 
States that settled that territory and are now located upon that very 
soil. 

Why was the first act passed by the Continental Congress, on 20th of 
May, 1785, for the disposition of the lands ceded by Virginia and the 
other States, and which has constituted the basis of the policy in regard 
to all the public lands, enacted ? Mark you, this was under the author¬ 
ity of the confederation, before we had any Constitution, when we were 
living under a league. In 1785, before our present Constitution was 
framed or ratified, an act was passed through the Continental Congress 
at Philadelphia to carry out the great trust of Virginia in respect to 
these lands. What did they do ? They passed a law that provided that 
the land should be laid off into townships, that section No. 16 in each 
township should be reserved for the maintenance of public schools, and 
that two townships in every State should be set apart for the support 
of a university. 

That was the spirit in which the early fathei'S met the educational 
question in the States, before we had any Constitution, before we had 
any quibbling as to what was meant by the general-welfare clause or 
any other clause, and at a time when every power not expressly dele¬ 
gated in the Articles of Confederation to Congress was reserved to the 
States, and when there was not a word in those articles in reference to 
this subject. 

Under that same policy what was done ? In 1848 and 1849 a still 
more liberal policy in regard to the provision for educational purposes 
in new States was adopted. In the acts passed in those years, respect¬ 
ively, creating the Territories of Oregon and Minnesota, section No. 
36, in addition to section No. 16, in each township, was set apart for 
school purposes; and to each new Territory organized and State admit¬ 
ted since 1848 (except West Virginia) the sixteenth and thirty-sixth 
sections of every township, one-eighteenth of the entire area, have been 
granted for common schools. , Other States have received grants. 

Mr. RIDDLEBERGER. Will the Senator from Florida permit me 
to state to him, if he is making his argument from a Virginia stand¬ 
point, that there is no amendment yet offered to the bill that could in 
any wise affect Virginia? That State gives $1,400,000 for public schools, 
and no amendment offered could in any wise affect that which would 
be apportioned under the original bill to that State. 

Mr. JONES, of Florida. I was only speaking of the historical fact. 

Mr. RIDDLEBERGER. I thought the Senator was arguing pecu¬ 
liarly from the Virginia standpoint. 

Mr. JONES, of Florida. Not at all; I am not arguing anything about 
Virginia except to show what was done with the land which she gave 
up to the United States. 

Other States have received grants for common schools than those I 
have named. Ohio received 69,120 acres, and I have no doubt she dis¬ 
posed of it well at good prices, Florida and Wisconsin 92,160 acres, and 
Minnesota 82,640 acres. 

From a report of the Commissioner of Education it appears further 
that under the acts of Congress passed in 1785 and 1786 there had been 


8 


distributed among twenty-six new States and Territories 67,983,914 
acres for the support of schools, besides what was given for universities 
and deaf-mute asylums.' 01'the pecuniary value of these grants, some es¬ 
timate may be formed by reference to the report of Dr. Barnard in regard 
to the lands granted to Minnesota. It appears from that report, that from 
1862 to 1866, embracing a period of five years, Minnesota had sold 
210,769 acres, which yielded $1,324,779, that she had got Irom the General 
Government. It is to be remembered that the distribution of lands to 
aid institutions of this kind is a very unequal method, because the 
lands of the great West went up in value tar beyond what they did in 
other sections of the country, and they were wealthier and richer for 
agricultural purposes. Where a grant of the sixteenth .section of land 
in Minnesota would be worth it may T)e $5,000, in Florida it would 
not be worth $500. 

The idea that the General Government has never done anything in 
this way can not be sustained when we come to remember the millions 
and millions of dollars that have gone into the public treasury of the 
States of the West under this land-aiding system to build up and sustain 
their common schools, and now after 5,000,000 unfortunate people who, 
as a race, had been in bondage for two hundred years, were elevated 
to citizenship by a single act of this Government and the whole charge 
of their training and (ailture put upon that impoverished section and 
this Government comes forth with a generous hand under the lead of 
my friend from New Hampshire and proposes to take a little otf the 
burden of taxation there by helping to educate these people, I say it is 
commendable. After all, in a great country like this the people are 
the state, and there was as much philosophy as poetry in the utterance 
of that great namesake of mine on the other side of the water Avhen he 
said: 

What constitute!? a state? 

Not hig;h-rais’d battlement or labor’d mound, 

Thick wall or moated gate ; 

Not cities proud, with spires and turrets crowm’d; 

Not bays and broad-arm’d ports. 

Where, laughing at the storm, rich navies ride'; 

Not starr’d and spangled courts. 

Where low-bi-ow’d baseness wafts perfume to pride. 

No !—men, high-minded men, 

AVith pow’rs as far above dull brutes endued 
In forest, brake, or den. 

As beasts excel cold rocks and brambles rude; 

Men, who their duties know. 

But know their l ights, and, knowing, dare maintain. 

Prevent the long-aim’d blow. 

And crush the tyrant while they rend the chain ; 

Thfse constitute a State. 


I 


OONGKES8 HAS NO POWEK TO USURP THE INSPB(nTOa 
LAWS OP^ THE STATES. 


8 P E E C H 

OF 

Mlt. CHARLES W. JONES, 

OF FLORIDA., 


LN TIIM 


UNITED STATES SENATE, 


Friday, April 25, 1884, 


OJf 


'PHR BRL FOR THE E.STABLISHMENT OF A BUREAU OF AHIitAiL 
, INDUSTRY, TO PREVENT THE EXPORTATION OF DISEASHD 
CATTLE, AND TO PROVIDE MEANS FOR THE SUPPRES¬ 
SION AND EXTIRPATION OF PLEURO PNEUMONIA 
AND OTHER CONTAGIOUS DISEASES AMONG 
DOMESTK^ ANIMALS. 


WASHINGTON. 

1884. 




K E C U 


8 P 

OF 

Mu. 0HAKLE8 W. J0NE8. 


The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, havin^under consideration the bill 
(H.K. 3907) for the establishment of a bureau of animal industry, to prevent the 
exportation of diseased cattle, and to provide means f or the suppression and ex¬ 
tirpation of pleuro-pneumonia and other contageous diseases among domestic 
animals, the pending question being on the motion of Mr. McPherson to recom¬ 
mit the bill to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry— 

Mr. JONES, of Florida, said: 

Mr. President: I do not intend to pursue the line of argument that 
has been Ibllowed up by those who have preceded me in the discussion 
of this bill. I take it that every Senator will concede that before a 
measure of this kind is enacted into the form of a law we ought to be 
able to satisly our minds that there exists authority in the Constitution 
for it. 

Of course we all know that there has been a good deal of loose legis¬ 
lation of late years passed through both Houses of Congress, but after a 
full review of this bill, testing it in every possible way by the standard 
of the organic law, I am free to say that it is the most extraordinary 
measure I have ever known introduced in the Senate. 

Notwithstanding all that has been said against the comstitutionof the 
Senate, I am inclined to think after all that it is the best security and 
sal’eguard for the interests of the States and the people. Of course the 
rules of this body wall not permit me to refer to the House of Kepresent- 
atives, although if I were to follow the example set me by some Senators 
here in the discussion on the naval bill I would be at full liberty to refer 
to it; but I have confidence in the Senate, and when I find a bill like this 
coming here from the popular branch of the Government I am inclined 
to think that the framers of the Constitution were not at fault when 
they created a body in which the States are especially and particularly 
represented without regard to population or anything else. 

This body, I say, was created by the framers of the Constitution as 
the especial guardians of the rights of the States. Each State has here 
equality of power, and I do not remember an instance within my time 
of service here when it has not been ready to vindicate the great prin¬ 
ciple on which its organization is based. It has often been called the 
house of lords; popular clamor has been raised against it; but, not¬ 
withstanding all that, when it comes to the consideration soberly of 
those great questions w hich affect the interests of the political commu¬ 
nities that we are here representing, I think it will be found that this 
at last has been the safeguard of the rights of the people and the 
States. 

I have never knowm a bill that infringed those rights more than this 
does. In my opinion it violates nearly every principle of the Consti- 





4 


tiition. I asked the Senator from Kansas the other day under what 
clause of our fundamental law could be found authority to pass this bilL 
Well, he said, he was not prepared to discuss the constitutional ques¬ 
tion. I do not say that I am, and those who know me in this body 
know that I have never been a stickler for an illiberal construction of 
our fundamental law, that I have always been disposed to go as far as 
any rational man could go in giving it a liberal and fair interpretation 
in the interest of the people and the States. 

If I wanted to select a text for my argument or speech on this bill I 
would take the tenth amendment, and it is a part of the Constitution 
which we have all sworn to support: 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor pro¬ 
hibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the peo¬ 
ple. 

Now, sir, where can be found power to enact this bill? If it cannot 
be found in the authority to regulate commerce I say it can not be found 
at all, and there is where the advocates of it place it. 

What does the first section of this bill propose? The Commissioner 
of Agriculture is to organize a bureau of animal industry and appoint 
a surgeon to report in respect to the domestic animals of the United 
States, their protection, use, and diseases, &c. He is authorized to em¬ 
ploy a number of persons, not exceeding twenty, to aid in carrying out 
the act. If I were disposed to quarrel with the verbal structure of this 
bill and had anything of the qualities of a humorist, I could push it to 
the extreme of absolute ridicule. What would not fall under the phrase 
“ domestic animals,” as employed in this first section? It would em¬ 
brace horses, cows, chickens, poultry of every description, hogs, sheep, 
and everything in that line. “Animal ” is defined to be “ any living 
sensitive creature having the power of locomotion but inferior to man.” 
Somebody’s imagination that is broader than mine can take in how 
much that embraces. The poet Young says: 

Were they as vain as gauily-minded man. 

Their arts and conquests animals might boast. 

And claim this laurel crown as well as we. 

This commission is authorized to take into consideration the state 
and condition of all domestic animals—dogs, horses, pigs, every descrip¬ 
tion of animals. The hen-roosts of the States are to be invaded by Fed¬ 
eral officials. Into the lady’s parlor, Avhere her lap-dog is found, is to 
be intruded the tirm of the Federal Government under the provisions 
of this bill; that is, if the officers who are designated to give effect to 
it will carry out its literal meaning. They need not resort to construc¬ 
tion, because the plainest interpretation will tell you that “domestic 
animals ” embrace every description of creatures that I have enumer¬ 
ated. They are not required to go any further with respect to those 
animals than to inquire into their condition and report upon it, and 
they are to get a per diem for this service, and the report is to come 
here from the Agricultural Department. Ah, Mr. President, this is 
getting faraway from the landmarks of the Constitution. 

I wish to know if when this fundamental law of ours was brought 
into existence, due to the necessity to regulate commerce with foreign 
nations and between the States, it was contemplated by its framers that 
jurisdiction over cows and hoi-ses and dogs and swine was a necessity 
that gave rise to its formation. Chief-Justice Marshall has told us in 
his great opinion in the case of Gibbons vs. Ogden that it was the neces¬ 
sity lor a power to regulate commerce which gave us this grand orgmaic 


6 


law. But was it this kind of commerce? No, sir; it was commerce 
as understood in an enlightened and liberal sense, that related to traffic 
between nations and between States in a comprehensive sense, and not 
the; exercise of a mere municipal police power to go down into the house¬ 
holds and to the farm-seats of the people of America and undertake to 
control their domestic and private affairs. 

I say we have gone at times a good way from the landmarks of this 
sacred instrument- 

Mr. PIjUMB. How about the school bill? 

Mr. JONE8, of Florida. I will discuss the school bill with you at 
the proper time. I have given my reiusons for my vote on that already. 
This is not the school bill, let me tell the Senator from Kan.sas That 
related to men; this to brutes. 

The second .section of this bill empowers, or authorizes, at least, the 
appointment of two United States .stock-raisers, who are to report upon 
the best method of transporting and caring for animals—that is, all 
kinds of animals, not ciittle—to provide for the extirpation of pleuro¬ 
pneumonia and the spread of other contagious and infectious di.sea.se8 
among every description of animals, dogs, cats, swine, sheep, hogs, 
cows, houses, everything that comes under the heiid of animal this bill 
authorizes. It may be said that the poverty of human language is so 
great that the average legislator can not describe a cow any better than 
by employing the word “animal.” I tell those interested in this bill 
that the word ‘ ‘ animal ’ ’ goes far beyond a cow, and would be so held 
by any tribunal and would be held so by the officers emixiwered to carry 
out the provisions of this act. 

Then the third section authorizes the Commissioner of Agriculture 
to prepare such rules and regulations as he thinks proper for the “ sup¬ 
pression and extii'pation of said diseases, ’ ’ that is, diseases affecting all 
kinds of animals, for the word “animal” is carried all through this 
bill, I should like to know where Congress gets authority to delegate 
this power to the Commissioner of Agriculture. This bill has been re¬ 
formed since first introduced, to make it more accej)table to the Senate; 
but under this powder to make rules here given to the Commissioner 
everything that was in it before can be introduced. This body has no 
authority to delegate its legislative power to any commissioner. Where 
rules are authorized to be made by the courts authority is given in the 
fundamental law, but authority is not proper to be given in cases of 
this kind to a commi.s.sioner; they may have the effect of statutes upon 
the rights and the interests of the people and communities where they 
are made to operate. 

lie is to invite the State authorities to co-operate in the enforcement 
of this act, and whenever the plans of the Commissioner for the sup¬ 
pression of disease are accepted by a State or the plans of the State are ac¬ 
cepted by the Commissioner the latter is empowered to spend the money 
that is to be appropriated by this bill. Then if he makes rules author¬ 
izing the use of slaughter-pens in every locality in the country the 
$500,000 appropriated by this bill may be used and employed to com¬ 
pensate the cow-owmers whose herds are killed in the Federal slaugh¬ 
ter-houses. 

But it does not confine itself to cows. It stil 1 keeps up the word ‘ ‘ an¬ 
imal,” for I think when this bill was framed those who drew it expected 
it to have a much more extensive operation than some imagine; and un¬ 
der this provision of it they could set up a corps of dog-killers in every 
tovrn and village in the country and slaughter the dogs in midsummer 



6 


when their presence might be dangerous to the inhabitjints, and their 
owners claim compensation for them under the provisions of this bill. 
A dog is an animal and a domestic animal, and comes within the literal 
meaning of the bill. 

So then here we have authority to organize an establishment under 
the authority of the United States to slaughter domestic animals of 
every description, and to pay their owners for them, if disease should 
be apprehended or contagion be suspected. And this is all under the 
power to regulate commerce between the States as contemplated by the 
framers of the Constitution! 

Now mark, Mr. President, as I go on, the obje(!tionable features of 
this bill as a regulation of commerce. The Commissioner is author¬ 
ized to invite the State authorities to co operate in the enforcement of 
this act, and when they come to a common agreement about it then 
they can get the money. I ask any Senator who has read the provis¬ 
ions of our Constitution with respect to the subject of commerce and the 
decisions of our highest court upon that question, where can be author¬ 
ity for this concurrent power ? 

The leading case on that subject, iis every lawyer knows, is the great 
case of Gibbonses. Ogden, in which the talent of Oakley and of Emmet, 
men among the first counsel that America had at that day, endeavored 
to impress upon the mind of the Supreme Court that the commercial 
power of Congress under the Constitution was a concurrent power and 
could be exercised by the States concurrently with the General Gov¬ 
ernment. That was a test case, and I say here that the principle of it 
has never been departed from in an^’- decision now upon the records of 
our courts. 

The commercial power given by the Constitution is an exclusive 
power, and the States have nothing to do with it. They can not go 
into any copartnership with this Government with respect to the cattle 
business or anything else. It never was intended that two sovereign¬ 
ties should blend themselves together in matters of this kind to carry 
out any public policy relating to the people of the States. After the 
great arguments that were made in the caseof Gibbons vs. Ogden, Chief- 
Ju'^tice Marshall summed them up on this point in a few words. He 
said: 

It has been contended by the counsel for the appellant that as the word “ to 
regulate” implies in its nature full power over the thing to be regulated, it ex¬ 
cludes necessarily the action of all others that would perform the same operation 
on the same thing. That regulation is designed for the entire result, applying 
to those parts which remain as they were as well as to those which are altered. 
It produces a uniform whole, which isas much disturbed and deranged by chang¬ 
ing what the regulating power designs to leave untouched as that on which it 
has operated.” 

Mr. Webster, who was the letidiiig counsel in this case, contended for 
that principle, and his argument prevailed. 

He contended, therefore, that the people intended in establishing the Consti¬ 
tution to transfer from the several States to a General Government those high 
and important powers over commerce which in their exercise were to maintain 
an uniform and general system. From the very nature of the ca,se these powers 
must be exclusive. 

No lawyer of recent days has denied the correctness of that legal 
proposition; and still this bill under this supposed power to regulate 
commerce authorizes the Commissioner of Agriculture to enter into a 
kind of partnership with the State authorities and to get their consent 
to this act, or for them to adopt some rules themselves, and then for 


✓ 


him to consent. Is that a sound constitutional principle? This Gov¬ 
ernment is independent of the governments of the States, and the 
governments of the States with respect to every power and authority 
reserved in the tenth amendment are independent of the Government 
of the United States. It was intended that this condition of things 
should exist. 

Then what does this bill further provide ? It provides that whenever 
the Commissioner of Agriculture declares that there exists in any State 
contagious disease, and the State fails to provide for its extinction and 
co-operate with the Commissioner, the President is authorized to put 
a stop to the transportation of cattle from such State. What doas this 
do? It gives the Commissioner of Agriculture authority to put a veto 
upon the decision of a sovereign State of this Union. If the State de¬ 
cides that there is no necessity for the intervention of this sanitary 
power and the Commissioner disagrees with it, the decision of the 
Commissioner is to prevail, and upon his certifying the 1‘acts to the Presi¬ 
dent, the President can destroy by a scratch of his pen the commerce 
of that State, as far as catttle are concerned, with the whole world. 
That is the bill. 

The ultimate decision is left with this little man—not little in the 
sense that some might regiird him, but little officially when compared 
with the authorities of a State in reference to a matter relating to its 
own domestic policy and interest—and the Commis.sioner of Agricult¬ 
ure is to come up and say, “My opinion is contrary to yours, and I in¬ 
sist that this national quarantine shall be put in operation against your 
State, and you c.an not help it.” The President’s proclamation then 
goes out, and that State is cut olf from the privilege of commercial in¬ 
tercourse with the whole world tus far iis her trade in c.attle or animals 
of any description is concerned. 

Sir, if this is not the exercise of the police power of a State, what is 
it? It is not the exercise of the commercial power, for that can be 
demonstrated. It is an attempt to e.xercise what every jurist from the 
foundation of this Government has as.serted to be a power that belongs 
to the States, the inspection power expressly reserved to the States, 
acknowledged by Chief-Justice Marshall in his decision in the case of 
Gibbons vs. Ogden. 

It is well understood by those who have investigated this subject 
that there is a class of laws known as inspection laws. They are laws 
which prepare articles for export and give a guarantee to the public of 
the country and of the world that they are in a condition for exporta¬ 
tion, for sale, and for consumption as food. If ever there was a law 
that could be considered an inspection law, this is that law, and it is 
well known to those who have considered the subject that commercial 
regulations under our system have never touched articles of commerce 
until after the inspection laws of the States had been executed. 

After the States have exercised their power under the inspection laws 
and prepared the articles subject to them for transportation, then the 
commercial power of the Union comes in and can regulate them us arti¬ 
cles of export, but not before; and nobody ffius ever claimed that under 
the power to regulate commerce in this Government the power to carry 
on a system of inspection with reference to goods of any description 
could be claimed. The Constitution itself expressly recognizes the 
authority of the States to adopt and carry out an inspection system. 
Clause 2 of section 10 of article 1 reads: 

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duthas 


on imports or exports, except what may he absolutely necessary' for executing 
itH inspection laws. 

What are “ inspection laws? ” Here you have the express authority 
of the fundamental law I'or the position that the inspection laws of 
the States were never to be interfered with by the General Govern¬ 
ment, and that in derogation to the principle giving to the United States 
authority to levy a tax on imports for general expenses, falling within 
the enumerated powers, the States under the Constitution could be 
permitted to levy a tax upon exports to meet the chargas attending in¬ 
spection of commoditias to be sent abroad from the respective States 
for sale. So where are you going to confine this? 

Do you i)retend to say that cattle are not merchandise, that horses, 
that hogs, that everything which the productive energies of man bring 
into existence do not fall under the jurisdiction of inspection laws? 
The purpase and object of all inspection laws is to see that the articles 
sent to foreign countries or to other States are such as will warrant their 
exportation as healthy products; and this bill proposes to take this 
power away from the States where it was left expressly by the Consti¬ 
tution and give it to the General Government. I^et me read a little as 
to what is meant by “iirspection laws:” 

The inspection law.s are very important regulations of trade. Tucker says : 
“There seems to be one class of laws which respects foreign commerce, over 
which the States still retain an absolute authority; those, I mean, which relate 
to the inspection of their own produce, for the execution of which they may 
even lay an impost or duty, as far as may be absolutely necessary for that pur¬ 
pose. Of this necessity it seems presumable they are to be regarded as the sole 
judges.” 

That is a quotation from Tucker’s Blackstone, and this is added to the 
argument by the very eminent counsel in the case of Gibbons vs. Ogden, 
and worthy of refiection because his views received the sanction of the 
court. On this question Mr. Emmet said: 

The extent and importance of this system of regulations does not strike the 
mind at the first view; nor do the powerful inferences it affords to show the 
concurrent right in the States to regulate commerce. Judge Tucker has very 
imperfectly .stated their extent. They do indeed regulate in almost every State 
the foreign trade so far as it is connected with our produce to be exported; but 
they do not confine themselves to produce to be exported; they relate to imports 
also. They act by restraining, and .sometimes prohibiting, the exiwrtation and 
importation of certain articles. 

Before examining tho.se laws it may be asked from whence is the right of re¬ 
straining derived but from the more extended right of prohibiting? The dif¬ 
ference between regulation or restraining and interdiction is only a difference 
of degree in the exercise of the same right, and not a difterence of right. The 
article in the Constitution, article 1, section 10, impliedly allows that right to be in 
the seveial States, and the right to enforce their laws by any other means than 
imposts and duties, and therefore by prohibitions of exports or imports. The 
right does not depend on the idea that the thing prohibited or restrained from 
being exported or imported is dangerous or noxious, even if that could ex 
n€<:e.‘initate create a right and give it to the State instead of the Oongre.ssional 
jurii^diction; on the contrary, the rules and enactments seem arbitrary. 

Aud he cites foriustancealawof New York, enacted under this power 
that 1 speak of, that pre.scribed the number of hoops and the size of the 
barrels and ctisks in which articles of export had to go out of the coun¬ 
try. The Supreme Court in this .same case, the opinion being delivered 
by Chief-Justice Marshall, adopted the views of the distinguished coun¬ 
sel, so far as the inspection laws were concerned, although the court did 
not concur with him in his illustration of the principles to the extent to 
which he carried them. Here is what Chief-Ju.stice Marshall says about 
them: 

That in.si>cction laws may have a remote and considerable influence on com- 
menx; will not l>e denied; but that a power to regulate commerce is the source 


9 


from which the right to pass them is derived can not be admitted. The objeci 
of inspection laws is to improve the quality of articles produced by the labor of 
a country, to tit them for exportiition, or, it may be, for domestic use. 

Mr. President, if I had been called upon to frame language with es¬ 
pecial reference to the object of this bill I could not have used words 
more strongly than thase of the Chief-J ustice of the United States ex¬ 
pounding the Constitution in regard to our inspection laws: 

They act upon the subject before it becomes an article of foreign commerce or 
of commerwi among the Slates, and prepare it for that purpose. 

Mark that. They act upon the cattle in the field, the goods in the 
factory. Everything while it Is a part of the general mass of property 
in a Stat-e the insjiection laws act upon, and the Federal power can not 
go there. 

They form a portion of that immense maas of legislation which embitvc-es 
everything within the territory of a State not surrendered to the General Gov¬ 
ernment—all which c,4n be most advantageously exercised by the States them¬ 
selves. Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as 
well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and tho.se which 
respect turnpike roads, ferries, 4fec., are component parts of this mass. 

That is the language of a man who above all others in this country 
understood the Con.stitutition, and it can not l>e charged against him 
that he ever restricted it to narrow limits because the school of politics 
that differed from him—if I am permitted to mention politics at all in 
connection with the name of so illustrious a judicial officer—the school 
of politics that disagreed with him at the time he lived in contended that 
he carried the provisions of the Constitution far beyond the bounds in¬ 
tended by its original framers; and still in this very opinion, the lead¬ 
ing one upon the subject of the rights of the States under the commer¬ 
cial power, he expressly reserved to the States the authority to inspect 
every article that they raised within them for export and to put it into 
a condition to secure profitable returns to the producers. 

After those articles are put on shipboard, after they are on railways, 
it may be, it is possible that the Federal power may be invoked for some 
sanitary purpase; but so long as they form a part of the great mass of 
the property of the respective States, there is no authority in this Gov¬ 
ernment to go there and make any laws in regard to them. 

This idea is further illustrated by Chief-Justice Marshall in the case 
of Brown va. The State of Maryland, in 12 Wheaton, when he is speak¬ 
ing of where the power of the Federal Government begins and where 
that of the States ends in matters of this kind. Here was a case where 
the State of Marvland attemnted to lew a tax unon imnorts that haxi 
paid duty at the custom-house before bulk was broken and before the 
goods formed a part of the general property of the State, and it was held 
that the Maryland law was unconstitutional, because, as Chief-J ustice 
Marshall contended, the importer had a right to the full benefits of 
the import after having paid his tax to the Federal authority, and he 
cx)uld not be required by the State to pay a license to dispose of those 
goods in bulk after they had passed the custom-house. But he did not 
stop there; he went on and said that after the property passed from 
. the custom-house and became a part of the general mass of the mer¬ 
chandise and property of the State, then the unlimited power of State 
authority and taxation extended to it. 

Now, what is the provision of this bill ? It is to operate upon a de¬ 
scription of property in the fields of the West and of the South before 
it is in any condition to be shipj)ed anywhere. As I have shown awhile 
ago, under the authority of tliLs bUl the Federal office-holder can go 


10 


into the fields in Florida and Texas and Alabama and Kansas and 
set up an arbitrary system of inspection and of health laws in regard to 
this description of animals, and cats and dogs if he wishes, and set 
aside all State autliority and say: “I require certain things to be done 
before you can be permitted to transport your goods to a foreign juris¬ 
diction.” 

Mr. President, before passing from this part of the subject I can not 
help observing upon the jealousy of the framers of the Constitution 
in regard to exports, for while it gives authority to levy a tax upon 
imports it expressly denies authority to Congress to levy a tax upon 
exports. They were fearful that that power might be derived by im¬ 
plication; and now what was the reason of that provision ? 

This is an instrument that has been guarded in every line. When 
the framers of the Constitution denied to this Government authority to 
levy a tax upon exports it was not without a purpose. It was the design 
and purpose to leave the genius of commerce the fullest possible scope. 
We have known of instances whereby the exercise of this power to levy 
taxes on exports the most unfortunate results have followed by the action 
of foreign countries; but this Constitution says Congress shall not levy 
a tax upon exports, and still under the power to regulate commerce it is 
claimed that we may pul a barrier against any State under the decision 
of the Commission of Agriculture and impoverish thousands of men 
whose goods may be as fit for exportation as those of any other people 
in the Union. 

I think we have gone far enough in this direction, and it is time to 
Cidl a halt. If any of the States have diseased cattle, let them kill 
them and draw upon the treasury of their own people to pay for them. 

Reference has been made to the quarantine law, and 1 think we have 
gone a little too far in that direction, much farther than the early fath¬ 
ers of the Constitution contemplated, because you will find, Mr. Presi¬ 
dent, that in 1789 and 1796, all along the period when the Constitution 
was first adopted, by general consent of the leading minds of this coun¬ 
try the subject of quarantine was left with the people of the States, and 
Congress passed laAvs requiring the officers of this Government to re¬ 
spect the quarantine laws of the States. Those laws are yet upon the 
statute-book. They came from men who participated in the framing 
of the Constitution, and who at least understood it as well as the gen¬ 
eration that now lives. 

So it wiis with the pilot laws. In 1789 Congress authorized the adop¬ 
tion of th “existing pilot laws of the States, and they have continued 
from that day to this to regulate this important subject. This was the 
spirit in which the early fathers understood the Constitution, but we 
have been going on from one point to another until there is hardly a re¬ 
lation, however private or domestic, that it is thought this Govern¬ 
ment ought not to reach. 

I .say, Mr. President, that the best and sure.st security we have for 
the continuance of this system of government is to keep its powers 
within the limitations prescribed in our organic law; that the diversified 
interests of this continent are too great for any uniform system, and that 
so long as the powers of this Government are employed in regulating 
tho.se matters which can be properly made the subject of uniform reg¬ 
ulation without producing conflicts of local intere.st, we shall have the 
best guarantee for its continuance. 

But I say if the time shall unhappily arrive when, departing from 
the genius of this grand structure, you carry this Federal authority 


11 


into every domestic concern of every State thronghoiit the land, you 
will have laid the seed for future trouble and dissension, and perhaps 
more than that. God forbid ! Let us stand b^^ this great organic char¬ 
ter. It is ample for all legitimate purposes. Let us understand the 
Constitutionas its framers understood it. Do not let us give half amill- 
ion dollam to a lot of inspectors to go down among the herds and 
swine of the States to pry into the private affairs of the people and in¬ 
terfere with them. Leave those people to their domestic institutions 
and they will take care of themselves, but do not educate them up to 
the idea that there is to be a remedy found here for every little-incon¬ 
venience or necessity that may arise in the course of human affairs 
within the States. 

The Senator from Kansiis a while ago alluded to the school matter. 
I gave my reasons for my support of the school bill, but I say to him 
and to anybody that thinks with him that there is no authority in that 
measure for this. I said that in voting a few millions of dollars, after 
the examples of the past, to the aid of the common-school systems of 
the States without interfering with their autonomy or their manage¬ 
ment, I was doing nothing but what had been done for generations 
before; that I was in the line of preparing and qualifying ignorance to 
enjoy the benefits of freedom, and giving security to this grand popular 
system which I hope is destined to live as long as the world shall last. 
It was not a vote in the direction of impairing the foundations of this 
grand structure, but it was in the line of strengthening it and improv¬ 
ing it, as I think. 

But I see the tendencies of measures like this. I see that after you 
get a cattle bill or a bill relating to one particular branch of industry 
there will be applications here for a hundred others from a class of peo¬ 
ple that are as meritorious those who raise cows. 

I have heard it stated here time and again, and very unwisely as 1 
thought, that certain avocations, certain ch\sses of the American people 
were not obtaining the advantages they were entitled to under this Gov¬ 
ernment. Mr. President, I have never heard that sentiment advanced 
here except with regret. This is not a government of classes, it is a 
government of equality, and no class has any special claim upon it for 
favors. We do not know the laborer, the farm hand, the factory hand, 
the mechanic, the cow driver. The people who were intended to live 
under and enjoy the benefits of this Government are the American peo¬ 
ple without regard to condition, avocation, or rank; and all this legis¬ 
lation looking to favors to particular classes, to the promulgation of the 
idea that this description of person or that have not got all out of this 
Government they ought to have, is a thing that never ought to be put 
forth by any representative man. 

Sir, I venture to say that in the early days of the Government if 
anybody had brought forth a bill like this under the power to regulate 
(commerce, it would not have received a moment’s thought in either 
House of Congress. This only shows the necessity even at this day of 
keeping within the reasonable limits of the fundamental law. I think 
that this bill is a clear and open violation of it. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Will the Senator allow me to ask him one ques¬ 
tion before he sits down ? 

Mr. JONES, of Florida. Certainly. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I ask him how he <»n justify upon the princi¬ 
ples of his argument on this bill his vote upon the bill to aid in the 



13 


support of our common schools and the yellow-fever bill. I should 
like him to do that before he sits down. 

Mr. JONES, of Florida. I have said repeatedly that that is no argu¬ 
ment. I say the cases are not analogous. I say that the health laws 
of no country and no quarantine systenr as understood ever were in¬ 
tended to refer to cattle. I say that cattle are merchandise; they are 
brutes; and what I have said about the school question I need not re¬ 
peat. 

I gave my reasons for it, and I thought I found authority in the Con¬ 
stitution for it. That may be a matter of difference between myself 
and my friend. I said that this Government had brought into existence 
5,000,000 citizens and invested them with political power. They were 
not o.attle or horses. They were sentient creatures, invested with great 
public rights and duties toward this Government; and after this Gov¬ 
ernment had decided to place them in this responsible position, however 
late it may have come, I thought it was perfectly competent for it to 
aid in qualifying them for the discharge of the great trusts put upon 
them. But that is not the case with diseased cattle in this country or 
anywhere else; and when the framers of this instrument intended to 
form it in 1789 and to make it a system to operate ujxm the people in¬ 
stead of States, as it formerly operated, it was not intended that itshould 
operate on cattle. 

I say there is ample authority w'ithin the States to take care of this 
subject for themselves, and when you come to analyze this bill it will 
be found to be a bill that intends to carry out of the Federal Treasury 
the money necessary to pay for the diseased stock which a little disease 
may render it necessary to destroy in the respective States. This $500,- 
000 is to be employed to pay for the slaughtered herds that the cattle 
health of some States may require to be slaughtered. I am not prepared 
to go quite that lar. 

Mr. WIIjLIAMS. If the Senator will allow me he has not touched 
the main question, 

Mr. JONES, of Florida. I should like for the Senator to touch it. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I will state it. The Senator wsrs a very earnest 
advocate of the yellow-fever bill. 

Mr. JONES, of Florida. I was not an earnest advocate of it. I may 
have voted for it. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. He made an argument and a very able one, ac¬ 
cording to my recollection, in favor of it; but I may possibly be mis¬ 
taken. 

Mr. JONES, of Florida. I think I voted for it. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. How can he justify his vote for the yellow fever 
bill with his vote upon this bill, because he must admit if the Con¬ 
gress of the United States has pow'er to regulate commerce so as to pro¬ 
tect the health and lives of our people it has power to regulate it so 
that it shall not damage them in their property. 

Mr. JONES, of Florida. It has been some time since the quaran¬ 
tine bill was before the Senate. I remember that it guarded very par¬ 
ticularly the rights of the State. 

Mr. WIIjLIAMS. I have the act right here. It gives full value. 

Mr. JONES, of Florida. To which act does the Senator refer? 

M r. WILLI AM S. The yellow-fever act that passed Congress. Here 
it is. It recognizes the full power of Congress, and authorizes quaran¬ 
tine not only against Ibreign countries but between the States. 

Mr. JONES, of Florida. I will thank the Senator if he will not in- 


13 


terrapt me; he Cfui apeak hereafter. I claim that men are not brntaa, 
and while I might be disposed to preserve the public health I reoogniae 
the distinction between cattle and men. I say that no quarantine sys¬ 
tem in the civilized world has ever before been held to embrace cjittle. 
It is not known under the quarantine system. It is a police power re¬ 
lating to brutes, and whenever you use th6 word “quarantine” you 
mean to guard the health of individuals against contagion from indi¬ 
viduals. 

M r. WILLIAMS. The Senator certainly understiinds that the quar¬ 
antining of a ship stops the vessel, its crew, and cargo. All can be 
stopped by a law of Congress, so that it touches property as well as 
person. 

Mr. JONES, of Florida. The laws of the United States are supreme 
in matters of commerce; they can stop anything. The authority of the 
United States Government with respect to commerce is very general jmd 
very unlimited; but so for as the power of quarantine is concerned it 
has not, as I understand, been taken away from the States. It is ex¬ 
ercised to-day by all the States in this Union, in New York, Massachu¬ 
setts; and although there has been a little additional power given thej?© 
the system itself has remained substantially the same. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yet here is a law expressly- 

Mr. JONES, of Florida. If the Senator will not interrupt niel would 
rather that he should make his speech upon that point after I get 
through. That is no reply to the argument that this is not a regula¬ 
tion of commerce but the exercise of the police power of the State. That 
is the point I am making. If the Senator will refer to it he will find 
that the State quarantine systems inmyStateare just as intact as they 
were before that law was passed; and in New York- 

Mr. WILLIAMS. The Senator will not deny that there are many 
powers belonging to the National Government which the States have 
been allowed to exercise, and which Congress may resume at any time; 
for instance, the power in regard to wharfage and mileage. He must 
admit that they are commercial .powers if he will not admit that Con¬ 
gress has a right to control commerce so that it may not carry disease 
to men or disease that may destroy their property, either Irom abroad 
or from State to State. There can be no escape from the logic of that 
argument. 

Mr. JONES, of Florida. We might differ about that, but I say the 
power to regulate commerce is an exclusive power in this Government 
and can not be delegated to anybody; and that, as has been stated here^ 
it is not a police power. The quaranti ne pow'er is not a commercial power 
strictly speaking. Judge Marshall said it was not. I do not follow 
him implicitly in everything, but he is great authority. 

I say that this is the first attempt, so for as I know, to establish a 
quarantine system with respect to cattle. 

I admitted very frankly in the outset of the argument that we have 
gone a great way; but that only shows the danger we are in of going 
too for. As I said in a former debate here, I attach no consequence 
and I never refer to previous votes in the Senate for any purpose. That 
amounts to nothing. I claim the right of changing my opinion at any 
time. But I say that the two questions are not analogous, and that 
there is a great distinction between the system to which the Senator 
refers, looking to the preservation of the health of men, women, and 
children, and a system which authorizes the Federal Government to go 
into a State and slaughter the cattle of the people and set off a bound- 




14 

ary against the exportation, which is merchandise, and its projierty, 
and thus possibly bring ruin to thousands of men. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. The Senator does not seem disposed to under¬ 
stand me. I want to ask again the question, do you deny that Congress 
has the power to prohibit the introduction of diseased animals from 
abroad ? 

Mr. JONES, of Florida. That is not this question. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, it is. 

Mr. JONES, of Florida. No, sir. 

O 





;-v‘- ^ 





■ V'.v.. •.-.,r 

■ * . I * ‘ t’. » 1 


' ' *#3 

^ ‘A. 





* A'j*_L_^ ^ ‘ ' I • 



' S' 




t\‘ 


\ * 


i;: '71 


, f > 




Vi 

* ' '■ ' ''A I If. 't^'.'-IkT 

■ ■ ,' ; .•. •«, .•> At./, V* ■(, 

" MMHjt '*• '• 






k»»i 



% ' .*'. 


y »»■»(* 




Tr 


<r* '"V’T: 

31-v'^ 


If 


■ ' 'i-r 
1 . > ' 


Lni. 


^7' 






>v ■*» s; 


U-y 




• • r.' 






M 


Kh 


W’ « 


vvr: 




IV Y 


» 


V •!> 


/'‘■y- \ ; 


V'v- 








y.- 


I ••' . .» 

\l.' ■• » W '- ' 




/?a 


rM 


r %>' 












rl \i 




f*' Ti 

■■^Mi 


J<.'. B / a 


A'.'j'a 










Ilf • 






.» 7 


•y 


.'* r 1 


:i 


'.K*_ 


4«.l 


rv. 




.:'X. 


*>»•, 






- J- 

S f.tli*:. ., • 


Sf«?i'-'55--rVV. 

T?l_vi?*A, ,: , '• ifv. c^Vr^-' B 


»4»f 




»f 








* 


. :. W 

L ■ '■■ • ’■• '' . • ‘ ' < . . in 

V * ' V ' ’ ’ ‘ ' * 1 

?»■' ■ ■«,'>» •'fe*t.''tj *,■'■■■'' ). V :.i'f-’'\X'' '' < 






I V .7 






/! / 






at 


I . '4 


f ■ 


y- 


s » 




v^. 






»■* ><1* 


^ V .« 


V . . 


» 5 


» .^f 






w 




*'4 V' 




J 


^ .#‘ 


hi *■ 




V 


> .V 




.V '■ 


♦-■ •■'Vv^v. 






u • ■;• 




vr ' 

4 ••*■./ 




• V ,>' 


W 




^ -V » 


■» / • 1^. 


idi>' 


D 


.. ' /.>„ 


'IVTi 


U •« * 

• • 11 








I* ‘i 


l»\ .'I 


a 


V» 






'.-I 


, . ft', 




•' ’- 


‘V/■"■'•. 


A.',. *. 




-V V, 








*’\y 


y ’ V 7. 


y , 


ii» ♦ 


. fSWii • '.•‘l/ V- ‘ * 






,v'.f >s: 


i; r I »•( 


' r 






fil * 


* *V'. 




.> 


> . • y < ' 




t< 


‘'T?i 


‘v; 


W. h V 


S V- 


L\i 


v'.‘ 


-- T».». 


^r’ 




>• 


' ■ .» 




n 


i] 


a V 




<. , '7 




fV' 














MIL 


' i , 


r. • 




*.1* '4 


'I « ?* '.♦r «- 


.' ‘ 4 


rill 


I* • 




f«*'' 




?i%! 


.: I C.a^ 




ijt: 


.fti 


, k? ^ 


<•4^ 






r, y 




A 


L? 


kf • 


4* . > 








.•.¥t 






'4 


Vu 




■•?r 


li^r .. ^‘f 


Ui 










rr'-* 












I*. ( 


■ vL • 






W 


• .** 










PENSIONS TO SOTOIERS AND SAIEORS 
OF MEXICAN WAR. 


SPEECH 


HON. JAMES K. JONES, 

OF ARKANSAS, 


IN THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Friday, March 7, 1884. 


WASHINGTON. 

1884. 






/ 


f 


\ 


i 

i 

j 

I 

I 





T? I z 


SPEECH 

OF 

HOX. JAMES K. JONES. 


The House having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5667) granting pensions 
to the soldiers and sailors of the Mexican war— 

Mr. JONES, of Arkansas, said: 

JNIr. Speaker: The bill now under consideration, and which it is pro¬ 
posed to pass under a suspension of the rules, is not in my opinion so 
just and fair as the bill reported by Mr. Hewitt, of Alabama, from the 
Committee on Pensions, and now a special order. That bill^ provides 
for pensioning the old soldiers of our Indian wars, and as a longer time 
has elapsed since those wars than has passed since the Mexican war, I 
must say that it seems to me an ungracious thing to pass by them 
while we are doing justice to others no more meritorious than they 
are. I do not believe that the soldiers of the Mexican war would, if 
they were consulted, favor this act of injustice, and I sincerely hope 
that this House will make haste to repair this Wrong, and do equal 
and exact justice to all these old men; but as nothing in this world is 
ever perfect, and as I heartily favor this bill as far as it goes, I shall en¬ 
deavor to give briefly some of the reasons why I think it, even in its 
present shape, should pass. 

If, when the roll is called upon the passage of this bill, there shall 
be, as I anticipate, a large majority in its favor, I shall for myself feel 
amply repaid for the part I took, a short time ago, in an all-night 
struggle to make Mr. Hewitt’s bill a special order, and which resulted 
in success, even though the effect of the present action may be for the 
time, at least, an injustice to a class of men whose claims we have no 
right to ignore. 

In every State of this great Union there are men who will be bene¬ 
fited by the passage of this bill. They are men now in the decline of 



4 


life, many of them in extreme old age, and so far as my observation 
goes they are poor. 

In fact, our armies are not generally made up of those who live in ease 
and splendor, but are usually composed of that class in which nerve, 
energy, and determination have been developed by conflicts in the stern 
struggles of life. 

I wish in the outset to say that I favor the most liberal policy on the 
part of the Government consistent with careful and prudent financial 
policy in this matter of pensions. Nor do I rest this upon any mere 
sentiments of sympathy, humanity, or gratitude, though I may as 
well say now that I believe these considerations are perhaps a suffi¬ 
cient reason for this policy. I propose to place my advocacy of liberal 
pension laws upon the higher ground of public policy, and I insist that 
nothing will so foster and strengthen the military spirit of any people 
as entire confidence on their part in the liberal care by the Government 
of its old soldiers when their power of caring for themselves has in a 
measure ^ceased, and when old age and its attendant evils has come 
upon them. The cheerful service and devotion of young men to do 
battle in the hour of need will never be wanting in a free country, 
where a grateful public certainly provides for its old soldiers. 

This I believe the framers of our Constitution knew and relied upon 
when they organized a government without the idea of a standing army, 
and where arms should be in every man’s hand. I believe this Gov¬ 
ernment will grow and prosper as long as this spirit is encouraged and 
kept alive, and whenever it is no longer a characteristic of our people 
that then our Government will be no more; and further, that whenever 
the decadence of this spirit sets in permanently, then this Government 
and civil liberty have entered upon their course to sure destruction. 

To get the full force of this position it is necessary that we look a 
little at our surroundings and also at those of our European neighbors, 
and to consider very briefly some strong points of difierence in our 
manner of government and theirs. 

We all know the rule has long existed of keeping large standing 
armies in all monarchies. They are, I believe, considered the chief 
bulwark and support of that form of government. The armies of kings 
have often been used by their masters against the people and to repress 
civil liberty. The observation of this system implanted in our fathers 


5 


the conviction that a standing army was dangerous to the liberties of a 
free people, but at the same time it was recognized by them that a state 
dependent upon the assistance of mercenary troops was constantly at 
the mercy of her neighbors; hence we find, at the time of the ratifica 
tion of the Constitution of the United States, that public sentiment*^ 
formulated itself in the declaration that ‘ ‘ A well-regulated militia being 
necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep 
and bear arms shall not be infringed. ’ ’ So important was this declara¬ 
tion in the minds of the people then, that as an amendment to the Con¬ 
stitution it was postponed only to the article providing for freedom of 
religious worship, &c. 

The wisdom and foresight of the fathers in framing the Constitution 
has been so striking in many instances in our history that the hand of 
Omniscience has been wont to be recognized by devout men in that 
great work; and, looking the whole field over, I think there is nothing 
in that wonderful instrument more calculated to strike the human 
mind with admiration or to suggest something more than human in 
the wisdom of its framers than this pro\’ision, departing so radically as 
it does from long-established methods of government and relying abso¬ 
lutely upon the patriotism of the people for protection to the Grovern- 
ment. It clearly shows that at the very beginning of our experiment 
in an untried form of government that the founders of our system fully 
understood and correctly estimated the character of our people, as well 
as the effect upon character likely to result from the enjoyment of free¬ 
dom ; and the history of this country has demonstrated that they reck¬ 
oned wisely when they intrusted the preservation of this Government 
and of civil liberty to the military spirit of the i)eople. 

The influence of this departure from old methods upon our progress 
and prosperity, on our phenomenal development, has been very great 
Compare ourcondition with that of Europe. Here, each man is free to fol¬ 
low whatever active trade or business his circumstances or his interest 
suggests. Each man is a producer or an active worker in the promotion 
and development of our prosperity. In Europe, on the other hand, a 
large percentage of the most active and efficient of those who should be 
workers in the hive of life must give a number of the best years of each 
life to the standing army. They are not only withdrawn from the pur- 




6 

suits for which the Creator designed them, hut they become an actual 
incubus upon the decreased corps of producers. 

In France, with a population smaller by many millions than ours, an 
army of half a million of men withdrawn from pursuits of civil life 
must materially affect the interest of all. So of all other countries 
where large standing armies are kept. This difference alone in pro¬ 
ducers and consumers would serve to make one country prosperous and 
another the reverse. With all the energies of all our people turned in 
the direction of development and increasing wealth, is there any won¬ 
der we have far surpassed nations which have wasted valuable lives and 
time in maintaining standing armies ? To compensate for the ne¬ 
cessity of armies for protection in case of war our fathers preferred to 

i 

rely upon our own citizens, turned to soldiers in times of need. They 
felt that as long as citizens were accustomed to the use of arms, the 
exercise of liberty, and the consequent development of habits of inde¬ 
pendence and self-reliance, would insure the Government all the pro¬ 
tection it could need in time of danger. 

The history of our country has fully demonstrated the wisdom of this 
belief; and if we will only keep alive the military spirit of our people 
and the confidence in and respect for our Government which has hitherto 
prevailed among us, we have no cause to fear any enemy. Every con¬ 
sideration of public policy urges that we take a broad and liberal view 
of this question of pensions. A niggardly course in this matter, es¬ 
pecially now, when the national Treasury is overflowing, will naturally 
excite the contempt of every man who ever bore a musket or ever felt 
a patriotic impulse. 

These old soldiers have been asking for this recognition of their pa¬ 
triotism and devotion for years, and Congress after Congress has con- / 
sidered the matter. They are a body of men whom the nation delights 
to honor. One of their number has had the extraordinary honor to 
represent three States in the Senate of the United States. Others of 
them are now and have been for many years eminent on account of 
their talen^ patriotism, and devotion to duty; while the mass of them 
in their humble homes all over the country, less gifted perhaps than 
their more distinguished comrades, but not less patriotic, have contrib¬ 
uted all in their power to the general good. Their history is the his¬ 
tory of this country through an era that shed luster on American arms. 


7 


Their marches and battles have excited the admiration of some of the 
most distinguished military men’the world has ever produced, and have 
been the subject of pride and exultation in our own country. Almost 
every State has some name honored in song and story whose life was 
olfered upon the altar of his country on the plains of Mexico. The 
survivors now ask, and have a right to ask, this recognition at our hands. 

This measure is in no sense sectional or local, but embraces in its be¬ 
neficent provisions worthy men from all sections of our great countr}". 
It is in my judgment a just recognition of the services of a class of citizens 
who in the prime of their lives rendered great service to their country, 
and are now many of them realizing that ‘ ‘ age and want’ ’ are in terrible 
reality an “ill-matched pair.” 

If we consider this matter in a mere business aspect, leaving out of 
consideration all sentiments of gratitude, all motives of public polic}^, 
and all feelings of humanity, and consider it only by the cold and rigid 
rules of merely business transactions, we shall be surprised to find how 
great are the advantages accruing to the Government of the United States 
and to us as a people from the efforts of our soldiers in Mexico. 

If gentlemen who are called upon to vote for or against this bill will 
for a moment look at a map of this great country of ours, and will bear 
in mind that the results of the Mexican war w^ere the addition to our 
domain of California, the great Golden State of the Occident, with her 
almost fabulous resources, absolutely astounding the world by the pro¬ 
ductions of her mines, in her delightful climate surpassing the dreams 
of poets—in the wealth and variety of the productions of her soil prov¬ 
ing a gem m the galaxy of States; and also remember that Nevada with 
her mines of gold and silver, capable of supplying the world with pre¬ 
cious metals, presenting in reality treasures in comparison with which 
the land of Ophir pales into insignificance; that Utah with her fertile 
valleys, and mountains great storehouses of treasure; New Mexico, 
Arizona, Wyoming, and Colorado, swarming with countless herds, ready 
to supply the world with cheap food, leaving the great Lone Star State 
entirely out of consideration, are all the fruits to us as a people of the 
war with Mexico, we begin to appreciate how great results came to us 
and will go to our children after us as the reward of the labors of our 
old soldiers. 

This great country is said to embrace 937,875 square miles of terri- 



8 


tory, or about 600,000,000 of acres of land, is adding annually al)Out 
$75,000,000 in gold and silver alone to the wealth of this country, and 
has already contributed precious metals to an amount greater than 
our bonded national debt, to say nothing of the wealth flowing from 
pasturage and agriculture, and taking no account of the limitless possi¬ 
bilities of the future. 

Besides these material considerations the commercial and political 
value of this great country must not be overlooked. 

With the acquisition of this domain, seven or eight times as great in 
extent as Great Britain and four times greater than France, it opened 
up the American continent to the American people from the Atlantic 
to the Pacific. It made the building of the transcontinental railways 
not only a possibility but a necessity, thereby opening up a great high¬ 
way for commerce “ to the East by way of the West.” 

The results of this acquisition in all its magnitude and importance 
will not be fully appreciated in a century to come. In the face of such 
enormous results, will this country hesitate longer to pass this bill ? 

The opposition to a measure similar to this was some years ago avowed 
to be on account of a depleted Treasury, and that time enough had not 
elapsed since the conclusion of the war. There was force and perhaps 
justice in those positions then, but these arguments certainly do not 
apply now. 

The Committee on Pensions in their report on Mr. Hewitt’s bill state 
that they really thought the annual outlay that will be made necessary 
by this bill, including the survivors of the Indian wars, would not exceed 
$1,370,496; but for safety, and to be sure they did not underestimate it, 
they added one-fourth and adopted $1,713,220 as the amount probably 
required. They estimated the average duration of these pensions at 
fourteen years, which would have made a total of less than twenty-five 
million dollars. 

There is now no lack of money with the Government. One of the 
great problems of the hour is how to get rid of the surplus revenue. 
All sorts of schemes are started and discussed by the managers of na¬ 
tional affairs (except perhaps the reduction of taxation) to accomplish 
this purpose, and there can certainly be no argument for want of money. 
Whatever of force the other objection had has too been weakened by 
the lapse of time, until I scarcely think any reasonable man can longer 


9 


urge it. It is true that argument has been urged, as it seems to me, 
in a veiy extreme and absurd manner. For instance, in the discussion 
of this matter in a former Congress the following language was used: 

The pension act of 1871, as stated by its strongest advocate, Senator Morton, 
was passed upon the principle that when fifty-six years had elapsed after the 
conclusion of the war, and when but few of the soldiers survived, when ti e 
youngest must be 75 years, it was proper and right to give those few men in 
the declining years of their life a gratuitous pension. 

And the same speaker, I believe, protesting against the passage of a 
measure similar to the one under consideration, said: 

It will not be pensioning men because they are in the decline of life; it will 
not be pensioning men because they are aged and infirm, because they aft 
poor and but few of them left, or because they have received wounds or con¬ 
tracted disease in their counti-y’s service; it will not be pensioning men because 
we have a plethora of money in the Treasury, We are not pensioning these 
men because our resources are great, and because we are not already taxed al¬ 
most beyond the power of endurance, but for reasons which T utterly fail to 
comprehend, 

I believe the same gentleman asserted in the same debate that it never 
had been the policy of the Government to pension soldiers, except the 
• indigent, until after they had passed three-score years. 

Such sentiments as these utterances avow and seem to imply I feel 
sure find lodgment in few hearts in this great country. That indigence 
is to be made a condition precedent to the taking care of an old soldier 
is a sentiment which the American people will' devspise. The indigent 
under our humane institutions are taken care of in entire disregard of 
their previous lives or conduct. 

The old soldier ought not to be placed on a level with the man who 
has passed his life in debauchery and crime, and the American people 
will never consent to it. 

The Committee on Pensions estimated the average age of the benefi¬ 
ciaries of their bill to be 62 years. This is far beyond the average life, 
and if the Government is ever to do anything for these men certainly 
the time has come. The American people do not wish to withhold this 
act of justice until all are dead or too old to enjoy its benefits, and they 
will not countenance further delay in the matter. 

Since Mr. Hewitt’.s bill has been made a special order I have been sur¬ 
prised to hear gentlemen say there are no precedents for this bill. So 
far from being correct, it seems to me the rule has been that long after 
the close of all our wars the survivors are granted gratuitous pensions. 


10 


Those wounded or injured in the line of their duty are of course pro¬ 
vided for from that date, and all have been provided for after many 
years. The survivors of the Revolutionary w^ar were pensioned in 1818;; 
the officers had long before been provided for. The survivors of the war 
of 1812 were also provided for in a similar manner. 

The old soldiers, for whose benefit this bill is designed, by their service 
to their country in bearing the Stars and Stripes in triumph into the 
capital of a foreign land, and the great acquisition of territory as one of 
the results of their labors, as well as by their age and condition, have a 
right to ask this bill. Many of them will never realize any benefit 
therefrom if longer delayed. In their old age and poverty they feel 
they fire being neglected, and the consciousness of duty well done on 
their part makes this apparent neglect all the more galling. I have seen 
and talked with them in this Capitol since the beginning of this session, 
and know their feelings. 

They have lived long enough to see splendid cities grow up all over 
the land their valor won for you. They have seen untold wealth ac¬ 
cumulate as the result of its occupation, and they ask through us now, • 
while the country is rich, prosperous, and happy, that they in their de¬ 
clining years may have their hearts and homes cheered by the generos¬ 
ity of the Government. 

When this is done they and all the country will “rise up and call 
you blessed.” 














r t 



ii% ■ 




V / 


>. 




\ •,. > 

to 


t* 


* 1 * 

.•4 r • 





i 


1 


« 


^ ; --i 

I 


I 


. ■■ ' 


1 













1 



\ 

\ 

‘ i 











4 ( 


!»• 

.-f 






% 


A 

!• 




r 


r - > 


\ 


« 



• t 




V** • ^ 


4 


, 4 

\ 

r 


• ^ 


»•.. i aX’-*' ^ ’I ••• • r-i 




V; : 




/. 


\ T 


* 





t 


t 


♦ 




,V 



s 


t 


X 





f 


i 


. .’'* 


/ 


H . 


< 


t 


/ 


A- 


I'J 




p 

\ 


vy>-^ 

f 'j ^ ' 

’ « 



I . , • 

‘'«. f 





I 


K' 







<• 


J 


t 

,4 





' *! 


*>. - 


/ 

I ' 


\ 


;v. 

< ': ■ 

1 ' 




h 



4 


« 


r" 


I 


■ 4 


( 


t 


» 



c 


I 

»’ 

I 


* ,•< 




• <*•' 

^ V ; 
*•■ A'j 






♦ / 


4. 

j 



/ 




• ;/. 




' i 
;V-^i 




3 C 


. *' - 

Tv,. .1 


•>>' 

..'v •- T 


'V"' -■'■"■' ■ 

■ r ‘ j. W fix .•)!> \ v^' * 








t I 






. i 


J 


' < 



1 




% 




. • 


f 




; 


i 

t 




t 




»■> 


( 


' 4 




<i. 


'i 






•tr 










- ‘J. 




• I 





. I‘.-'A 







Shall the Country, twenty years after the close of the war, have 
a moderate reduction of war taxes? 




THE TARIFF. 


SPEECH 


HON. JAMES K. JONES, 

OF ARKAIirSAS, 


IN THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


Wednesday, Apkil 16,1884. 


WASHINGTON 

1884 . 







SPEECH 


OP 

HON. JAMES K. 


JONES. 


The House beiiigin Committee of the Whole House on the state ofthe Union, 
and having under consideration the bill (H. R, 5893) to reduce import duties and 
war-taritF taxes— 

Mr. JONES, of Arkansas, said: 

Mr. Chairman: The tariff question has occupied the attention of the 
people of the United States in a greater or less degree from the founda¬ 
tion of the Government down to the present time, and is yet unsettled 
and likely to remain so until some solution of it shall be reached which 
satisfies the demand for that fairness, justice, and equality which every 
American citizen feels to be his birthright. 

Any tariff system which disregards two ofthe fundamental principles 
of all just taxation, pointed out by Adam Smith more than one hun¬ 
dred years ago, can never be accepted as correct by a free people. The 
principles so disregarded in our system are: 

First. Subjects should contribute toward the support of the Government as 
nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in propor¬ 
tion to the revenue wTiich they respectively enjoy under the protection of the 
State. 

Second. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep 
out of the poclcets <if the people as little as possible over and above what It 
brings into tlie public Treasury. 

Under our system these two principles, which must strongly com¬ 
mend themselves to the approval of all just men, have been persistently 
and grossly violated. The people of the United States have been taxed 
not in proportion to their respective abilities, but really in proportion 
to their respective necessities. And so far from being so contrived as 
to take “ out of the jxickets of the people as little as possible over and 
above what it brings into the public Treasury, ’ ’ the system has been ar¬ 
ranged to take as much asnos.sible, and to divert as much as'possible of 
what is taken from the Treasury of the Government and into the pock¬ 
ets of certain favored classes. 

Widely differing views are held in this country upon this tariff ques¬ 
tion. Some persons favor absolute freedom of trade, while others favor 
a system of what is called “protection,” amounting practically to pro¬ 
hibition, and l>etween these extremes will be found most of our people. 

However much the Kepublican party may hesitate to avow it openly 
and in direct terms as a party policy, those who have controlled its 
management and shaped its policy for many years have favored a tariff 
which had protection for its object and prime consideration, while rev¬ 
enue has been subordinated to it as a mere incident, and in the admin¬ 
istration of the Government they have lived up to this idea in disregard 
of the just complaints of the victims of their policy. On the other 
hand, the masses of the Democratic party have favored a tariff the ob- 



4 


ject and purpose of which is to raise the necessary revenue, and no more. 
As the levying of any tariff, no matter how moderate, tends to increase 
the price of the article upon which it is levied, there would necessarily 
be some protection resulting from a strictly revenue tariff; but such 
protection is merely an incident, unavoidably following any tariff upon 
any article produced in this country. 

It is of course well understood that, other conditions being the same, 
•the largest importations will take place under free trade, and that as the 
tariff increases, the tendency is to check importations, so that the increase 
of rate and decrease of importations are always the factors which deter¬ 
mine the point of maximum revenue upon any article. After passing 
the maximum revenue point each increase of rates lessens importations 
and decreases revenue, until the point of positive prohibition is reached, 
when of course there will be no revenue, or the same result, so far as 
revenue is concerned, as free trade would produce. 

During the war and for some years following it the expenditures of 
the Government were extraordinary and extraordinary measures were 
necessarily devised to provide means to meet these expenses, and to this 
the people cheerfully submitted. But when this abnormal state of 
things had passed away and the Government had more than enough to 
meet all demands the feeling became general that there ought to be a 
lessening of taxation, and at this hour this demand is widespread and 
imperative. As there can be no pretense that the present taxes are nec¬ 
essary for revenue, the truth stands out boldly that the object of the 
present tariff taxation is protection for the sake of protection, and this 
is avowed afresh by every failure to reduce taxation, and by each false 
pretense that it has been done. 

The bill under consideration is intended to meet this demand and 
to effect a reasonable reduction of taxation. I am fully aware of the 
fact that many well-informed gentlemen believe that the adoption of 
this bill will increase rather than decrease the I'evenues. With me this 
would be no argument against the bill, even if this should be true, for 
to my mind the crying evil of the system is excess of taxation, the ex¬ 
cess of revenue being merely the shadow to that substance. Keraove the 
substance and the shadow will not trouble us. Besides, this argument 
is an admission that the tariff has been carried higher than the maxi¬ 
mum revenue point, that it is protective for the sake of protection, and 
this if true makes it a matter of principle with all Democrats that it 
should be as rapidly as possible reduced to that point. 

HORIZONTAL REDUCTION. 

The bill proposes a horizontal reduction of 20 per cent, upon almost 
all articles, but limited by the Morrill tariff of 1861, below which noth¬ 
ing is to be reduced; or, in other words, all of the proposed reductions 
are applied to war taxes and the tariff upon no article will under the 
operations of this bill be brought below the tariff of 1861. It is pro¬ 
posed that all shall be treated alike and that each interest shall submit 
to a reduction to which all others are required to submit. Only this 
and nothing more. 

It would perhaps have been more philosophical to have attempted to 
correct all inequalities and incongruities in the present tariff along with 
this reduction; but while I have no doubt that these inequalities are 
glaring, yet we can not undertake in a single bill to remedy all the 
wrongs that the Republican party has been able to build up in twenty- 
three years; and as the reduction of excessive taxation is of much more 


o 


importance to the people than the adj ustinent of irregularities among 
taxed articles, all too high, this bill goes in the right direction and 
proposes to deal with the greatest amid a multitude of lesser evils. 

Any attempt to readjust the relations of the various articles in the 
tariff at this time would have encumbered and in some measure ob¬ 
scured the real object had in view by the committee, and would only 
have furnished grounds for cavil and fault-finding among those who do 
not and never did intend to have any reduction of taxation as long as it 
could Is>e avoided. It was better, therefore, to present first this simple 
question without side issues: Shall the country twenty years after the 
close of the war have a moderate reduction of war taxes? 

This is the question presented by this bill, and this is the question 
that we answer when we cast our votes upon it. Besides this argu¬ 
ment against disturbing relations at this time, there is another that I 
confess has weight with me, as I am always conservative and desire to 
accommodate myself to the honest opinions of others as far as possible. 
All those gentlemen who voted for the bill of March 3, 1883, for the 
reason that it was the best that oo’^ld be had, and was to some slight 
degree an improvement on the old law, and who really favor a reduc¬ 
tion of taxation, will certainly vote for this bill, beonuse it is, pure 
and simple, a reduction upon a bill which they seemed only to object to 
because it was too high. 

If the prolessions of a great desire to reduce tariff taxation so freely 
indulged in two years ago by gentlemen on both sides of this Chamber 
hiwi been earnest and sincere there certainly would be little opposition 
to such a proposition as the present one now; but, unfortunately for the 
country, there was no such real intention then, but the Tariff Com¬ 
mission and the act of March 3, 1883, were mere devices to avoid carry¬ 
ing out their pledges and at the same time to cajole the public into a 
belief that some relief had been afforded. The President of the United 
Stiites h:ul recommended reduction; protectionists in Congress pro¬ 
claimed that some action should be taken and at once proceeded to 
abditijite the high functions pertaining to their offices and appoint the 
Tariff Cmnmission, on the ground that Congress was not sufficiently 
informed to act intelligently in a matter of such “pith and moment.” 
The commission was appointed and entered upon its work. 

It was instructed by the act which called it into existence— 

To take into consideration and to thorong-hly Investigate all the variousques- 
tions relating to the agricultural, couitnercial, mercantile, manufacturing, min¬ 
ing, and industrial interests of the United States, so far as the same may be neces¬ 
sary to the establishment of a judicious tariff or a revision of the existing tariff 
upon a Sijale of justice to all interests, and for the purpose of fully examining 
tlie matters which may come before it. 

In obedience to these instructions the commission traveled over 7,000 
miles, visited twenty-nine cities, and examined more than 600 wit¬ 
nesses, hiking testimony seventy-eight days, which covers 2,625 printed 
pjiges, ami reported to Congress that— 

In the performance of the duty devolved upon them all the members of the 
coinmissiou have aimed, aud as they believe with success, to divest themselves 
of all politic;il bia-s, sectional prejudice, or considerations of personal interest. 
It is their desire that their recommeudatious shall serve no particular party, 
class, section, or school of political economy. 

And further that they believe that— 

A subversion or radical change in the present eoonomio system would throw 
labor out of employment, ruinously depreciate values, and create a general in¬ 
dustrial and commercial disaster. 


6 


Yet they say that— 

Early in its deliberations the commission became convinced that a substan¬ 
tial reduction of tariff duties is demanded, not by a mere indiscriminate popular 
clamor, but by the best conservative opinion of the country, including that 
which has in former times been most strenuous for the preservation of our na¬ 
tional industrial defenses. Such a reduction of the existing tariff' the commis¬ 
sion regards not only as a due recognition of public sentiment and a measure of 
justice to consumers, but one conducive to the general industrial prosperity, 
and which, though it may be temporarily inconvenient, will be ultimately bene¬ 
ficial to the special interests affected by such reduction. No rates of defensive 
duties, except for the establishment of new industries, which more than equalize 
the conditions of labor and capital with those of foreign competitors can be 
justified. Excessive duties or those above such standard of equalization are 
positively injurious to the interests which they are supposed to benefit. 

And all this is from the unanimons report of a commission created 
by a Republican and protectionist Congress, and composed of nine men, 
aU of whom are protectionists, all of whom were selected by a protec¬ 
tionist President. 

Further on they say: 

And in the mechanical and manufacturing industries, especially those which 
have been long established, it would seem that the improvements in machinery 
and processes made within the last twenty years and the high scale of produc¬ 
tiveness, which has become a characteristic of their establishments, would permit 
our manufacturers to compete with their foreign rivals vmder a substantial re¬ 
duction of existing duties. 

And they say that the average reduction of rates aimed at by them 
is not less than 20 per cent., and they believe it will reach 25 per cent, 
and then say: 

If the reduction reaches the amount at which the commission has aimed and 
if there is any truth in the allegation of the opponents of the present economic 
system, that a duty on articles such as are produced in this country, whether in 
manufactures or agriculture, enhances the price to the consumer, not only of 
what is imported, but of the Avhole domestic production, to an amount of which 
the duty is a measure; the reduction proposed by the commission would bene¬ 
fit consumers to the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars. 

Why did the identical Congress which called this commission into ex¬ 
istence upon the plea that Congress was not weU enough informed upon 
this question to act upon it intelligently immediately repudiate the 
work of the commission, this pet and creation of their own, unless it 
was because they had never really intended any substantial reduction? 

The bill reported by the commission was certainly in conformity to 
the recommendations of a Republican President and with the profes¬ 
sions of protectionists in Congress, yet a Congress which had solemnly 
proclaimed its own incompetency to deal with this question refused to 
aeeept the work of the commission, and by organizing a conference com¬ 
mittee, all of whom were protectionists but one, demonstrated its ability 
to avoid a reduction in spite of its pledges and the work of its own com¬ 
mission. 

The reason for this sudden change is to be found in the fact that the 
commission was compelled to favor a real reduction and the bill of 
March, 1883, made no provision for any such thing, but was an ex¬ 
pedient to avoid action, and has accomplished no reduction worth the 
name. It is true that importations have been smaller under it than 
they were for the corresponding period in the previous year, and in con¬ 
sequence there has been some reduction of revenue; but the reduction 
in rates of taxation is merely nominal, the average under the old law 
being 42.65 per cent., under the new 40.91, ora reduction of only 1.74 
per cent.; or, in other words, a reduction of 4 per cent, of the tax in¬ 
stead of the promised 25. If the pending bill should become a law we 


7 


will only have carried out and accomplished what was promised by the 
protectif)nists and was recommended by the commission. 

The gentlemen who told us that the Tariff Commission was the proper 
means of finding out what ought to be done in this matter are estopped 
from denying that this bill is reasonable in the quantum of re<luction. 

The charge has been freely made and industriously circulated that we 
who favor a reduction of taxation to a revenue basis, who A%dsh to re¬ 
turn to what we believe to be constitutional methods, are absolute free¬ 
traders, and propose to abolish custom-houses and by violent and revo¬ 
lutionary methods to uproot and destroy the protected industries of this 
country. I do not believe that any intelligent man ever really believed 
this; yet the charge has done service in arraying the prejudices of those 
less informed, and especially the laborers in this class of industries, 
against us. After a full discussion of this question in the Forty-seventh 
Congress, the people of the country placed the Democratic party in the 
majority in this House, and it is right and proper that we in clear and 
unequivocal terms define our purposes upon this question, and no way 
cnu be so clear and effective as to pass a bill which reflects the sentiment 
of our party. The passage of this bill will be a complete answer to all 
the charges of violent intentions, and will again in an authoritative man¬ 
ner announce to the country that we favor “ reformation, not revolu¬ 
tion.” 

ACTION NECESSARY. 

I can not agree with some of my part^”^ friends that because we are 
in the maijority in but one House of Congress therefore we should not 
attempt anything affecting the tariff at this time. If we have been in 
earnest for the last forty years in our party declarations on this ques¬ 
tion, we certainly will not fail to give expression to those views in a 
way more effective than the generalities of a political platform now 
that we are in the majority in the popular branch of Congress. If we 
place ourselves on record in favor of just and moderate measures in the 
direction of a return to constitutional methods, we will have redeemed 
our party pledges; and if then the Republican party chooses to assume 
the responsibility of preventing all efforts at even a moderate reduction 
of taxation, the issue will be fairly made up and the country will decide 
between us. 

The course of doing nothing would be simply dodging this great 
question, and as I believe the utmost frankness and sincerity is always 
the bevSt policy, I am in favor of boldly occupying Democratic ground. 

If the country thinks with us on the question this course will inspire 
confidence; and if it does not, dodging will not deceive the people nor 
strengthen us. 

We should be consistent with our party declarations and with our 
own expressions. Mr. Randall in the debate upon this question in the 
last Congress well said; 

T do not favor a tariff enacted upon the ground of protection simply for the 
sake of protection, because I doubt the existence of any constitutional warrant 
for any such construction o? the grant of any such power. It would manifestly 
be in the nature of class legislation, and to such legislation, afavoringone class 
at the expense of another, I have always been opposed. 

This is a clear and strong statement of the difference between the 
Republican and Democratic parties upon this question, and as all of us 
liave sworn to support the Constitution, we who are Democrats can not 
fail, at every opportunity, to try to bring the present high and oppres¬ 
sive protective tariff—levied “simply for the sake of protection,” 


8 


“without constitutional warrant,” and “in the nature of class legis¬ 
lation,” “favoring one class at the expense of another, ” to which we as 
Democrats “have always been opposed”—down to the basis of a con¬ 
stitutional tariff, one levied for revenue. On such a proposition there 
is no middle ground for Democrats. 

That the present rates of Federal taxation are excessive no one can 
deny, for the fact stares us in the face that we are collecting annually 
from eighty to one hundred millions of dollars more than the Govern¬ 
ment needs. One of the oft-repeated arguments against this bill is that 
its passage or even its discussion will disturb business, and that its mere 
discussion in committee has already done so, and many claim that the 
passage of the last tariff act was a tacit agreement not to disturb the 
tariff further for years, and they always close with the assurance that 
“ what the country mast needs is a little rest. ’ ’ One of the great errors, 
according to my view, in the protectionists is that they seem always to 
be utterly oblivious to the fact that anybody exists except themselves. 
They seem never to know that there are millions of people in this 
country embracing the bone and sinew of the land who have the great¬ 
est possible interest in this question, and who, under the iniquitous sys¬ 
tem of so-called protection, are annually compelled by the operations of 
unequal and unjust laws to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars for 
the purpose of making other lines of busineas profitable, some of which 
within and of themselves, and without “protection,” perhaps could 
not exist. 

These people have been taught that this was designed to be a govern¬ 
ment of the people and for the people; and they do not believe that 
their inalienable and God-given right to labor and enjoy the fruits of their 
labor can be bargained away by any conference committee of Congress, 
and they will not fail to set the seal of their condemnation upon such 
assumption—a tacit contract indeed—when the consumers of tiiis coun¬ 
try actually had no day in court, no chance to be heard, no opportunity 
even to protest except by the mouth of one single representative against 
the pas&ige of the bill of 1883. Those who divided among themselves 
the raiment of the Saviour of mankind had j ust as legal and valid a right 
to their plunder as have the parties to this iniquitous scheme to a 
vested right to go on with this jilundering for ten years. 

We agree with them that “what the country most needs is a little 
rest, ’ ’ but the rest it needs is rest from unj ust exactions, rest from having 
the most ill-fed and ill-paid class of the people, and who do more man for 
man to build up the country and add to its material wealth than any 
other class, compelled to contribute of their scant and hard earnings to 
swell the splendor and wealth of a class who contribute less to the ad¬ 
vancement of the country than they get from it. This rest will come. 
The power is in the hands of the oppressed, and they will yet dare be 
free. 

EXCESS OF REVENUE. 

A revenue largely in excess of the necessary expenses of the Govern¬ 
ment is unquestionably a great evil. The withdrawal of large sums of 
money from the ordinary channels of business must of necessity tend to' 
obstruct and restrict commercial transactions over the entire country, 
thereby unsettling values and disturbing all business. Besides this, 
the presence of large accumulations in the Treasury, for which there is 
no demand in the ordinary management of the affairs of the nation, must 
in the nature of things promote extravagance in the disbursement and 


9 


more especially in the appropriations for even the commonest expenses. 
The knowledge of such an accumulation will foster and encourage among 
the people demands tc ‘ ‘ unlock the van Its of the Treasury ’ ’ in obedience 
to all sorts of local demands with little regard to their merits. The 
watchfulness, too, of the general public over the expenditures of public 
money is lulled by such a condition.of things, and dishonest officials 
find therein their opportunity for jobs and all manner of frauds. All 
these are evils, and should beyond any question be provided against by 
having only so much money collected from the people as the impera¬ 
tive demands of the nation may require, and I am as anxious as any 
one can be to avoid these evils. 

While we should meet this question and dispose of it, it is our duty 
to accomplish it by the mode most in accord with the general interest 
of the people. We should not in our efforts to get rid of this trouble 
fasten upon ourselves another, before which this pales into insignificance. 

The general demand for a reduction of taxation of course receives new 
vigor from this excess of revenue, which can not be avoided or explained 
away in argument. The problem then which presents itself to the pro¬ 
tectionists for solution is how to reduce the revenues and get rid of this 
surplus, and at the same time reduce tariff taxation as little as possi¬ 
ble. Their system, ‘ ‘ in the nature of class legislation, favoring one class 
at the expense of another,” to use Mr. Randall’s forcible language, 
must be Siived if their ingenuity can devise the means of being rid of 
our surplus revenue, aside from the reduetion of their taxes. 

INTERNAL REVENTJE. 

The best means of reaching this end, now so earnestly desired by all 
the protectionists, is to abolish the entire internal-revenue system and 
.save alive and unharmed the more unjust and oppressive tariff system. 

I would not object to an abolition of the tobiicco tax and the tax on 
brandy distilled from fruits, because this can be done without render¬ 
ing the maintenance of the tarilf system, as at present framed, a neces¬ 
sity, and beciiuse this is the most obnoxious branch of the internal- 
re venne system, and because, further, it is a tax, in the case of tobacco, 
on a raw agricultural product, and is by its operation, like the tariff 
system in the ad valorem tax, being increased to the poorer classes, 
while it is decreased to the consumeis of costly tobacco. The fruit dis¬ 
tillations are a small matter—of no consequence to the Government, 
and the revenue from it does not compensate for the annoyance to the 
growers of fruit. But the great source of internal revenue should be 
kept as now until we have had relief from tarilf taxation. If our en¬ 
tire system of Fe<ieral taxation was so contrived as both to “take out 
and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over 
and above what it brings into the public Trciisury ” there would be 
little difficulty in accomplishing this purpose; but, unfortunately for the 
great mass of consumers, unfortunately for 90 i>er cent, of the people of 
the United States, such is not the effect of the laws, and, unfortunately 
for them all and for the cause of human liberty, such is not their ob- 
ject. 

While no law can be found upon the statute-book of this nation 
which directly and in terms lays any tax for the open and avowed pur¬ 
pose of being collected for the benefit of a mere private citizen, yet in 
practical operation such is the effect of some of the lavvs under which 
we now live and such Ls the invariable result of protection 

Cotton-spinning machinery costing abroad $10,000 must when brought 


10 


into this country pay the Government $4,500 duty; hence the purchaser 
in this country must pay $14,500 for what he c^ould have had for $10,000 
but for this tariff tax. Of this amount of course $4,500 goes into the 
Treasury, $10,000 to the foreign manufacturer. The American manu¬ 
facturer of similar machinery, who but for the tariff would have been 
compelled to sell for $10,000 or have no buyer, can now force the Amer¬ 
ican buyer to pay him the $14,500. Here is a tax the result ot the law, 
and yet not directly and in terms laid by it. It is none the less a tax 
upon the buyer of American machinery. But of this tax the Government 
gets not one cent, but all of it goes to the pockets of the manufacturer. 
If it is right that money should be taken from one citizen to be given 
to another by such indirect methods, why not do it directly and let 
everybody know exactly how much of his property is to be taken from 
him to be given to others, and not have the amount unknown, as now. 
This would certainly be the more manly and honest method of accom¬ 
plishing the same result. 

The intenal-revenue laws, or practically the tax upon spirits and tn- 
baoco, yield the Government about $150,000,000 per annum, and all of 
this tex, less the expense of collecting it (about $5,000,000), finds its 
way into the Treasury. There is no semblance of protection in all the 
system, however much we may dislike it. It can not be used in any 
manner to put money ifito the pockets of private citizeiLS, while on the 
other hand the tariff or the taxes on all manner of imported goods 
yields the Government about $190,000,000 per annum, but, being pro¬ 
tective by increasing the prices of all similar domestic goods to the 
-consumers, it operates as an indirect tax amounting to “ hundreds of 
millions of dollars per annum.” Just how much this tax is can not be 
definitely ascertained, and estimates vary greatly—from five hundred 
to one thousand million dollai's per annum; but it is none the less cer¬ 
tain and none the less oppressive and unjust beaiuse levied and col¬ 
lected by such indirect means iis to prevent a full and exact knowledge of 
all its effects. 

It is clear, then, how it becomes a matter of great concern to the 
consumers as a class whether the proposed reduction be made by abol¬ 
ishing the internal-revenue system or by a reduction of tariff taxes. 
Each reduction of revenue from the first will represent just the same 
reduction of taxes and no more, while in the case of the tiiriff each re¬ 
duction of $1 of revenue will represent a reduction of $1 of tax in favor 
of the Government, and from $4 to $6 re^laction of tiixes which are 
collected from the people, but which go to the manufacturers, or while 
the Government gives up $1 the manufacturer gives up $5 or$6. This 
will explain the opposition of the protectionists to the reduction of the 
tiiriff, and why it is that just now they so vociferously demand the re¬ 
peal of the entire internal-revenue system. How the righteous souls of 
the protectionists are now vexed by the outrages of the minions of the 
Federal Treasury upon the poor moonshiners in the mountains of Ken¬ 
tucky and Tennessee. Those thinj^s existed a long time without elic¬ 
iting one word of sympathy from the warm-hearth protectionists, but 
the moment they found their system was in danger, the moment they 
are likely to be restrained in the pocketing of hundreds of millions of 
the property of others each year, that moment they wake up to the 
wrongs of the poor moonshiner and they are ready to do battle for him 
with their tongues and ballots and a part of their money if thereby 
they ctan save themselves. If their sudden interest in these poor fel¬ 
lows am hoodwink enough voters the internal-revenue system will be 


11 


swept off the face of the earth, and then the complacent protectionist 
can comfort himself that he has another long term of the right to 
pocket annually hundreds of millions of the earnings of other men. 

That party which loves to parade its high moral ideas, and which loves 
to pray standing at the corners of the streets, those who thank Gk)d that 
they are better than other men, will be but too glad to become the patrons 
and champions of cheap whisky if they can thereby continue to reap 
where they have not sown. They will rejoice to make whisky free if 
thereby they can maintain their right to levy their accursed toll upon 
every article of necessity that ministers to the comfort of the poor. 

Mr. Chairman, the time has come when the consumers of manufect- 
nred products of this country—the great body of the people, those 
who l^r the burden in the heat of the day—should, if they do not 
emulate the selfishness of the protectionists, at least determine that they 
will no longer be hewers of wood and drawers of water for them in a 
country where all are born equal and ought to have equal rights under 
equal laws. The protectionist has proved that no one knows better 
than he that “he who would be well taken care of must take care of 
himself, ’ ’ and it is time now that the other class should learn the lesson. 
In this connection let us look at 

A FEW FACTS. 

The census of 1880 shows that $2,790,223,506 of capital is invested 
in manufacturing enterprises in the United States, and that their gross 
product is $5,369,667,706. Deduct $3,394,340,029 material used in this 
manufacture and we have left $1,975,327,677 as their product; and to 
produce this result 2,738,930 persons are employed. 

Engaged in farming we find that we have— 


Value of farms-$10,197, 096,776 

Value of farm implements- 406, 520, 056 

Value of live-stock_ 1,500, 464, 609 


Total__ 12,104,081,440 


not deducting one cent for fertilizers, seed, and other materials. The 
gross production is $2,212,540,927, and to produce this result 7,670,493 
persons are employed; or the manufiicturing enterprises yield, after 
deducting materials used, over 70 per cent, upon the capital invested, 
while farming pays less than 19 per cent.; yet fiinning is heavily taxed 
to increase the profits of the manufacturers; and when we ask by this 
bill a reduction of but one-fifth of ohis burden of taxation we are gravely 
told that the manufacturers can not afford it. No account is taken of 
what a farmer can or can not afford; but his forced contribution while 
living upon a gross product of 19 per cent, upon his capital invested 
must be kept up to swell the wealth of those making more than 70 per 
cent. Again, etich laborer in manufactures, after deducting cost of ma¬ 
terials used, produces $721.20, while each laborer in farming produces 
but $288.44, nothing whatever being deducted for materials; and yet 
hundreds of millions must be taken from one class to be given to the 
other. And this is what protectionists tell us is building up the country. 

This system of so-called protection; this invoking the aid of the Gov¬ 
ernment to compel all the people of the country by the operation of 
unjust and unequal laws to contribute to the wealth of a class; this fear 
of meeting fairly in the open markets of the world the citizens of other 
wuntries, being driven out of the markets of all the world except our 







12 


own, and retaining them only by skulking behind commercial Chinese 
walls, more suited to the Middle Ages than the nineteenth century, is 
the most cowardly and thoroughly un-American, if I may be allowed to 
coin a word, that has ever fastened itself upou a people who supposed 
themselves to be free, and its approach has been like that of a thief, 
stealthy and under false pretenses. At first it only claimed a place as 
an incident to the necessary revenue, but gathering strength and greed 
with age it now, in the insolence of wealth and pride of power, demands 
that the great constitutional power “ to lay and collect taxes, duties, 
imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common de¬ 
fense and the general welfare of the United States, ’ ’ shall become subor¬ 
dinate to and a mere incident of protection; and we hear men of power 
and influence avow that they advocate not a tariflf for revenue with inci¬ 
dental protection, but a tariflf for protection with incidental revenue, 
thus setting up the most monstrous iniquity in this country as being 
higher and more sacred than the Constitution itself. 

A HAKDFtrL THAT HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAE. 

But in the midst of all this there is now and then a struggling spark 
of American manhood which has not been debauched. My heart was 
made glad some time ago by meeting a delegation of American artists 
who came here to ask that the work of their competitors, the artists of 
Europe, be allowed to come into this country free of duty. I was glad 
to see that there were yet some Americans, even though very few in 
numbers, who have the spirit of ’76, who believed that they could suc¬ 
cessfully meet competitors from all countries. These men came not 
asking the Government to keep the American markets for Americans 
who could not take care of themselves in open competition, nor to com¬ 
pel Americans who might want to buy pictures to buy from them; on 
the contrary, they ask^ to be allowed to meet the artists of all other 
lands on terms of perfect equality on our own soU or elsewhere. 

Here was a class of men who did not want the mailed hand of the 
Government laid upon other callings to put money into their purses. 
It was a refreshing sight to see that one class had at last come to the 
seat of government that was not skulking behind obstructive commer¬ 
cial laws to cover up their own deficiencies and want of skUl—men 
who were actually not afraid to meet competitors from all parts of the 
globe. 

Mr. Chairman, I have lived all my life in the Southwest and have 
been accustomed to look at this great Yankee nation too much from a 
Fourth of July standpoint, I suppose. You may guess then what a shock 
it was to me to find that Brother Jonathan did not go abroad, as I had 
supiwsed, with his long hair, ill-fitting boots, dressed in a suit made of 
the Stars and Stripes, with a face as sharp as his scent was keen for a 
bargain, striding up and down in the earth seeking whom he might trade 
with, ready to swap j lick-knives, manufacture wooden nutmegs, sawdijst 
sausages, bogus railroad stocks, or salted mining shares, as the state of 
the market might seem to suggest, or the elevation of the morals of 
the world to the high protectionist standard might seem to demand. 

My idea had always Wn that Jonathan was possibly a trifle vain, per¬ 
haps egotistical, but I did not think he regarded man or feared the devil 
in a trjide, but that he felt himself able to hold his own under all circum¬ 
stances and everywhere; that he could and did make as fine a quality of 
olive-oil out of cotton-seed as could be found on earth, and tliat he regu¬ 
larly poured it as an oil of gladness into the stomachs of the French and 



13 


Italians. Think then, sir, how I felt when it came out before the Way& 
and Means CJommittee a few days ago that by tricks Johnny Bull had 
actually run him out of the Mexican cotton-goods market by making an 
imitation of Yankee goodsoutof cheap cotton, starch, and dirt, and Jona¬ 
than was compelled by such competition to fold his tent and silently 
steal away. But the crushing blow came when a good man, represent¬ 
ing the high morality and culture of the down-East protectionists, as¬ 
sured the committee that the all-silk goods of American manufacture, 
which we protect by 60 per cent., actually contain only one-third cot¬ 
ton; and another quite vanquished me by telling us how, by a pious 
fraud, our people passed American hose on an unsuspecting American 
public for British manufacture, and made them so like the real, genuine, 
honest article that a shop-keeper sold a large lot of them to a manu¬ 
facturer’s wife at about 300 per cent, upon Avhat he had originally 
paid her husband for them. It is enough to make the angels weep to 
see the innate honesty of our guileless people so taken advantage of by 
the rascally British. We can impose upon our people and swindle them 
to our hearts’ content with our ^ill-silk goods only one-third cotton and 
our “real British ” hose if you will only keep the vile English away. 
But let them come here, miserable wretches, and they will expose us, 
bring real culture and rehnement into contempt, and certainly beat ns 
at our own game, as they did in Mexico, and we will be forced out of the 
market and out of business. There was some show of reason and per¬ 
haps fairness in the old Georgian who, when challenged to fight a duel 
by a one-legged man, insisted on his right to have one of his legs in¬ 
cased in a section of a hollow log so as to make the chances even. But 
our manufacturers, afraid of a fair fight in open market, absolutely 
crawl clear into the gum, head and heels. 

To men who understand what human nature is it is perfectly apparent 
that the object of inipo.sing a protective duty upon any article imported 
into this country, and which is also produced here, is simply to enable 
the American producer of that article to compel the American consumer 
of it to pay him a higher price for it than he would have to pay if there 
was no protection. There is absolutely nothing in protection if this is not 
true, and no one will deny that this is the effect and the obiect of such a 
duty. 

WHAT PROTECTION COSTS. 

Just how much the people of this country are by this means com¬ 
pelled to contribute to the producers of protected articles can not be 
exactly stated, yet by considering the prices at home and abroad of pro¬ 
tected articles and the amount in value of such goods consumed we may 
approximate the amount. 

Hon. S. S. Cox, of New York, one of the most accomplished and 
versatile men in American politics, a man who has devoted a lifetime to 
the service of his country, and who, I am happy to say, is yet young, 
has estimated the amount thus collected from the people at large for 
the benefit of a class at from seven hundred and fifty to one thousand 
millions of dollars per annum. Professor A. L. Perry has estimated the 
yearly amount since the war at $600,000,000; and Hon. William M. 
Springp:k, of Illinois, than whom there is no more ceaseless worker and 
clear-headed man in this House, estimates it at $556,000,000. 

The following table, which I find in an article in the North Ameriain 
Review for June, 1883, I subjoin, as showing his manner of arriving 
at his conclusion. 


14 


^ I 

^ s e 
^ S’ 
o ^ ^ 

'S^ ^ 

2 2 V 

I »l, 

I^C 

’'“28 

<4^ 2 V 
►2 "S S 

g «* •>* 

•5 V 

8 - i 

■^ •< 'S 

^ § If 

^ 8 
•■s ■< 

^ 1 : 2 
tD 

<V) -is TS 
-2 

^ g ^ 

■ 22 ?^ 

-O ^ § 
® 8 ® 
'8.1'^ 
c 4 .^ 

i-st 

•««* ^ ? 

111 

I'i J 

<5 

05 a- 

J s'! 

■2 25 i 
"S 2 

•fx* W 
.2 




2 

•23 

•«?* 

IS 






s 

2 0-5! 
2 

00 

»Cf ®0 V* 
^ 2 2 

'4!' 2 

£ $4 2 
2 2 

^2 -2 V 
^ 4J <3 

S O^ 


8 ^ 
*%d 

I 


•J5U») aqi 
JO aosBoi i£q 
BjDnpoad araoq 

JO JSOD OS^dJO 

-ui oqj Suiaq— 
saxwj i-BjaapiDui 


•inajo[BA 
pB aSBOIOUl JO 
9 j « j pajBtaijga 


'JB9.< 9qj 

Suunp soSbai 
uj ’^unotoB iBjox 


S Oi 

eo 
xj< u5 

ies 

?5S 


(NiN-1<r-<5O«lC'r^rH20 

o^wr-irrt-t-^c^gow 

«eot-rtot'i-(iooo4 

^ oT 00 to' o' eo' eo' to' of 2 " 
-H oo o o o ‘ 

O 00 to i-( 1-1 


> <0 Tf Oi <M pH ' 
i ^ C^ ^ < 


t^rH Oi CC 
X 4^ »-< »-H 

S'C^ CO of 

> Cl fH 




ss 

tx* -Tf 

o^o" 

^ CO 
CO rH 


00 t- 
'-f ^ 
O 00 


•puBq B jiBq 
9UO SB p^anoD 
QX Japan sxJiS 
puB 9X Japan 
sXog ‘paXoid 
-ni a s p a B q JO 
J9qnina aSBjaAy 


•0881 sns 
-U 90 ‘sjonpojd 
ooioq JO an^BA 


o 

5 o4 

tcS 

C - 

s ^ 

^ c 
•o S 

a; 

■£•2 
o ® 

ft'O 

.§s 

;s *1^ 
5 «5 
« 


03 3 

S)£ . 
nss 

03 03 o3 
> > ►" 
<'0 


•2 
>>® 
■S.> 
n ® 

H 03 
« 
u 


® 

3 

3 

> 


e 

ja 

•*> 

•o 

0*2 

^■5 

^3 


◄ 




> o 

> (N 

> 

IS 


I rH O t>* 05 CO 


Q^ O CO ?DlO ^ CO 
CIO OCO OOO'xOrH’^OCi 

COCO ^ CC COCOXCiC'^O 

co'x* cc cSCO <0 aS 

t^CO lA d ^55 UO »-H X CO ^ 05 

CO O w5 05 5P^ 05 ic -H O 05 'xO 


rH CO Q 

s 


eo eo o o 


t'* ot tp eo op 
to eo eo ic to 


I 00 <M eo OO Oa — X 00 I 


t-j i> to i-( eo i-H tx. e<i Tt< o OS 
to^ W^^Xtp^COpsXtO 


ao 
10 

_ _ _ 1 i> 

C"—ijS Sxr^SXxJlirico^f-i 50 

i> to CO LOC-I 5 x,' X r J to ^ h ^ 


. —* >0 

» 10 IN 
t x'm 


iio^3:«5ot^p:.N 




Q^OStOMasOSNt-^t> 
eo xu< rH (N N 1-1 


Cs CO 
<0 xfl 
i-H O 


xi^osN'ftooaiooo 
9E: £} S «> 21 ^ N 5s 

OSXNr-HOOlO'I'XtO 


t-oa cx'Xjiotoxxosiftxo 

Sgg 


: ®— 

• 'O 

: e3 3 a; 

: T. ^ ^ 

• cc ^ S 

J5 fcCS S 
2'02^ 

o S ^ § 
" 2 c g 

-X i.^ 3 

aJ — 

S 3 .. V 
^ 43 OD d 
dJi-d 0 


® 

bi 

S3 

tx 

x" X 

3 ® 

0/ X 
•O M 

o o 

•2 

3 

o3 



• T 

! • 


'■Xl 



tri 0 



2 0 

• • 


c be 


c 

[;) 

Q 

n 

iJCg 

353 

CO M 

? Q 0 


i«| 

6&i 


'V 
o 


^•2 ® 5^ 

O 3 O M . 

StSjtiS 
.’2 ® 1 ^ 2 ; a 
3 : 3 3'2 ® 3 . 

§ 8 


o 


1 ’ product for 1880 was: Sugar, 196,759,200 pounds; molasses, 16,573,273 gallons. Number and wages of laborers not abated. 



































15 


These statements are enough to show that enormous sums of money, 
amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, are by the operation of 
protection in the United States taken from all the people to benefit a 
class year by year, and this has gone on without interruption ever since 
the close of the war. Does it seem possible that the resources of any 
nation on earth could have stood such a drain and at the same time 
have paid the enormous sums which we as a nation have paid to liqui¬ 
date the national debt and the interest on it, and to meet the current 
expenses of the nation and its immense pension-roll at the same time ? 
And who paid and who received all this ? 

The census of 1880 shows that all the persons engaged in manufact¬ 
uring, mechanic, and mining industries numbered 3,837,112; in agri¬ 
culture, 7,670,493; in trade and transportation, 1,810,256; professional 
occupations, 4,074,238; total, 17,392,099. 

HOW MANY ARE TAXED. 

Mr. Springer’s table shows 1,327,881 persons engaged in protected 
industries, not counting sugar and rice, and a few other industries of lit¬ 
tle importance, which he thinks would not swell the number above 
1,500,000. This would leave 15,892,099 persons engaged in occupa¬ 
tions practically not protected, and these are taxed this enormous sum 
for the benefit of 1,500,000; or less than 10 per cent, of persons are 
protected while over 90 per cent, are taxed for their benefit. Or, if 
Mr. Cox’s lowest estimate is correct, $500 for each man, woman, and 
child employed in protected industries is legislated out of the pockets 
of the people and for which nothing whatever is rendered; the same 
thing as taking this out of other people’s pockets by taxation and giv¬ 
ing this pet class $500 eiich. 

Under the Constitution of the United States Congress has power “ to 
lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and 
provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United 
States, ’ ’ but it has no right to lay and collect taxes for any such pur¬ 
pose as this. But even if Congress had the constitutional right to levy 
taxes for any such purpose it would be cruel and unjust and a violation 
of all natural laws to exercise it, and the American people would hurl 
from power any party attempting to exercise it if it was fully under¬ 
stood. 

Asking protection is a confession that the business proposed to be 
protected within and of itself can not be profitable. It is in etfectsay- 
ing that he who proposes to do so can not engage in the businevss with¬ 
out suffering loss by it, but that he will engage in it if the Grovemment 
will compel the general public to make up his loss to him and then pay 
him a profit. And this is what protectionists call building up the 
country! It is useless to argue such a proposition—it is nonsense; it is 
worse, it is an outrage on its lace. Any business conducted at a loss, 
whether to the owner or the country, must detract from the general 
wealth of the country, and shifting the loss from him who ought to bear 
it to the shoulders of men who have no interest in the matter does 
not mend it in the least. 

protectionists’ pekas. 

The arguments which protectionists seem most fond of presenting as 
a compensation to the public for all these wrongs are, first, that protec¬ 
tion protects American labor against the pauper labor of Europe; sec¬ 
ond, that it builds up home markets for farm products; third, that it 
builds up and develops the country and increases the wealth of the na- 


tion; and fourth, that ultimately the competition among our own man¬ 
ufacturers will give our people cheaper products than they would have 
had without protection. 

The fallacy of all these positions has been again and again pointed 
out, and yet they are asserted now with as much vehemence as they 
ever were. Of course men can not be easily convinced against their 
wills or their interest, and we can not hope to convince those who reap 
the harvest in this system of unj ust legislation to admit that it is wrong, 
at least so long as it is profitable; but fortunately for the interest of 
justice a very small per cent, of the American people are so interested, 
and when the system is fairly understood by the whole people we may 
reasonably expect a condemnation of all that is vicious in it. 

The real interest of the protected industries in labor are twofold, 
one is to employ it at the lowest market rates, due regard being had to 
efficiency and the other is to secure votes by inducing the laborers to 
believe that in some way they are interested in these indirect gains. 
The latter is the reason of the prominence always given by our protec¬ 
tionists to the duty of protecting our labor against the pauper labor of 
Europe, and it is absolutely false. 

Hateful to me as are the gates of hell 
Is he who hiding one thing in his heart 
Utters another. 

While the protectionists are parading themselves and their system 
as the real friends of the American laborer and his only protector 
against the “pauper labor of Europe,” it may be instructive to call to 
mind how this peculiar solicitude for the good of the laborers operates. 

In the matter of tin-plates, for example, when they are brought into 
this country to be manufactured into cans for fruits, or vegetables, or oil 
for the American market they pay a tax of 1 cent per pound or over 25 
per cent., but when they are brought here made inio cans, filled with 
fruits, or vegetables, or coal oil, and shipped abroad, then nine-tenths of 
the duty is refunded, so that the American canned fruits, vegekibles, 
meats, and fish, which find their way to the home of an American 
laborer as a luxury, or to the hut of an American miner as a necessity, 
pay nine times as much tax on the can as is paid by the pauper laborer 
of Europe, against whom this system so vigilantly protects him, and the 
amount of money so refunded upon five articles during the last fiscal 
year was $1,345,757.77, while nothing was remitted or even asked for 
in favor of our people. 

Now Congress is being asked to return the other one-tenth to the ex¬ 
porter, which will be the entire tax, and they all assure us that this is 
right; but when this bill proposes to reduce the tax on our own people 
20 per cent, they assure us that it will ruin the country ! This is one 
instance where great numbers might be given showing that tbia system 
discriminates against our own people. 

CAPITAL, PROTECTED, BUT NOT LABOR. 

In all the great protected manufacturing establishments much the 
larger part of the wmrk is done by machines, but much must be done by 
human hands. The machinery in these mills is all protected from the 
competition of similar English machinery by a tax of 45 per cent., for no 
mill can be set up here in opposition to those already going except by 
paying this tax, but the laborers can be brought from an English mill 
and employed here in competition with American laborers and they pay 
no such tax. And this is as the protectionist would have it. How then 


17 


cau he p^se as the special friend of the American laborer? We can not 
limit this freedom of immigration. We are glad to see the oppressed 
and ill-paid of other lands seeking homes among us, but when they do 
come, as they have done, let them be willing to take an even start and 
a fair chance in life and take care of themselves, and not ask the Gov¬ 
ernment to tax our people to support them. 

When they come here from abroad and displace American laborers 
from American mills it does not look well in them to demand that the 
Grovernment shall protect them “against the pauper labor of Europe.” 
Mr. Cox, of New York, in a recent speech in this House, estimates the 
foreign labor in our mills at 64 percent., and it is to protect these peo¬ 
ple against their brothers and sisters across the water that the protec¬ 
tionists want protection. 

With an open field and full competition it is not likely that bananas 
would be grown for market in New Hampshire, or buckwheat in Louisi¬ 
ana, but people would engage in natural occupations. Each man and 
each nation would utilize the advantages that nature and nature’s God 
hjis given them, and the world would be better and more cheaply served 
than now, and the condition of no class would be more ameliorated by 
this general emancipation than the American laborers. Then it would 
not be a curse to the general public, as it is now, to find one of the great 
storehouses of God in our mountains and fields. 

In the last Congress, when an effort was made to protect this country 
from a flood of heathen Chinese labor, the cheapest and most immoral 
in the world, people who can and will live upon what would be starva¬ 
tion wages to any American, the protectionists were found voting against 
it. They are willing to levy taxes to enrich themselves under the pre¬ 
tense of protecting American labor, but they always want and actually 
get the cheapest labor possible. 

AMKRICAN AGAINST ENGLISH WAGES. 

But how much truth is there in the claim that British labor is cheaper 
than American ? Let us see. 

In a letter of Mr. W. H. Young we have the opinion of a practical 
manufacturer, as follows: 

Columbus, Ga., March 13,1884. 

Dear Sir : I have your letter of 10th instant, in which you ask my views as 
to what effect a reduction of 20 per cent, would have on the cotton manufaotuiv 
ing interests of the South. To the question I answer unhesitatingly, none. 

The South is noAV engaged in manufacturing, say, standard (or heavy-weight) 
goods, and which are mainly consumed by the masses of our population South 
and North; and now the South sends her surplus productions to the North, 
where they displace all such heavy-weight goods as were formerly made there 
and sent South. These advantages (in all such goods) must ever remain with 
the South, over New England and Old England; and New England, on account 
of closer proximity to the cotton-fields, has a relative advantage over Old Eng¬ 
land. 

A reduction of 20 per cent, in the tariff would not enable England to compete 
with this country, North or South, in these heavy-weight goods; but if the tariff 
on all articles entering into the cost of manufacturing in this country were also 
reduced 20 per cent., then the manufacturei*s North and South would be bene¬ 
fited ; and if the duties on all such goods entering into the cost of manufactur¬ 
ing were made free, then the North and South could compete with England in 
all markets of the world. The tariff as it now stands of course shuts out all for¬ 
eign competition with manufacturing productions in this country (except a few 
8pe«ialties of fine goods for the wealthy); and it locks in their productions, and 
thus confines them to the home demand ; and, as a consequence, there is now a 
glut of goods. To illustrate my position, the company over which I preside con¬ 
sumes about fifty bales of cotton per day. A New England mill consuming tliat 
amount of cotton would have to jjay $150 per day more for it than it costs this 
company, and a mill in England would have to pay more than that. 

These advantages are so great that the tariff (if entirely removed) would not 

Jo-2 



18 


enable England to compete with this country on heavy-weight goods, and if the 
tariff was removed on all articles that enter into the cost of manufacturing, then 
this country could command the markets of the world and the supremacy of 
England would be ended. 

I have visited England three times and have investigated the cost of labor 
compared with the South and found it more (or higher) than here, and yet our 
operatives were in better condition from the fact that food costs less with us, and 
clothing also, as our climate does not require such heavy clothing. 

I think labor at the North about the same as in England. 

I also investigated the cost and selling price of heavy cotton goods and con¬ 
cluded I could sell in England at a profit, but to do so I must adopt their pecu¬ 
liarities of styles, and I prefer a home market. 

I believe if all our custom-houses were abolished that this country would find 
(in England) a large market for our manufactures of cotton and woolen goods. 
Now, this country is heavily taxed with almost everything that enters into the 
cost of production, beginning with machinery and ending with the baling the 
goods with Scotch burlaps. 

I believe the manufacturing interests in this country, with their natural ad¬ 
vantages, if free from all tarift’ legislation, would soon become the great manu¬ 
facturing center. 

Yours, truly. 

Eagle and Phenix Manufactuking Company, 
W. H. YOUNG, President. 

Hon. Hugh Buchanan, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 

He says that there is no difference in cost of English labor and that 
of New England in the mills, and this would seem probable. 

When any commodity is high here and low in England, it naturally 
comes here until the increasing supply here lowers the market and the 
decreasing supply there increases the price until an equilibrium is re¬ 
stored. We readily see why a difference in prices might not suddenly 
or readily induce persons to change vocations, but what reason is there 
why men for better wages should not change mills when the work is 
the same? An English laborer coming to the United States does not 
change his language, and is really now but a few days away from his 
childhood’s home and in “the land of the free;” why do not the English 
mill operatives come over to the American mills in numbers? 

A protectionist before the Committee on Ways and Means at this ses¬ 
sion had to admit that he had known numbers of English mill opera¬ 
tives to return to England from the United States to work for smaller 
nominal wages than they received here, and said that he supposed that 
the reason was that they could get more of the comforts of life there 
for their wages than here for wages received here. No system of high 
tariff is in operation there to raise the price of every article the laborer 
has to buy as is the case here; hence his expenses are less and on 
smaller nominal wages he lives better and saves more. The ‘ ‘ forty- 
niner” who got $100 per week for work seemed to be doing well as 
compared to the man who was working in the States at $30 per month, 
until you found that the Californian paid $99 per week board. Com¬ 
mon sense suggests to every man that if there was a great advantage in 
the prices of labor here over England for the same class and character 
of work that the laborers would come here in numbers. Our climate 
is as good as theirs; our Government certainly compares favorably with 
theirs; the possibilities here are as great as there. 

SUPPLY AND DEMAND. 

The trath is, supply and demand regulate the price of labor just as 
anything else, as was clearly shown by a protectionist during this session 
in a statement to the Committee on Ways and Means, that, while the 
tariff upon his product had been increased by the recent act, his mill had 


19 


lowered wages 10 per cent., and he gave as the reason for this reduction 
that such reduction was general. Yet this man will tell the mill-men 
at home that the reason he wants protection is to enable him to pay 
them high -wages, and that their interests demand that they shall so 
vote. Will American laborers always believe such stuff? This claim 
is a repetition of the old fable of the lion and the beasts hunting in 
partnership—the prey all belonged to the lion. This is illustrated as 
follows: By Mr. Springer’s table we find that the 1,372,881 persons 
engaged in the really protected industries receive as wages $463,606,049, 
and deducting therefrom the totals in census reports we find that the 
1,345,918 persons engaged in manufacturing industries, mainly not pro¬ 
tected, receive $477,719,876 wages, or a smaller number of persons 
receive a larger aggregate of wages in unprotected than in protected 
industries. This of itself demonstrates the hollowness of all pretenses 
that protection is intended to benefit labor. 

The protected industries enumerated by Mr. SpringeIi receive as a 
subsidy from protection really very much more than his cautious and 
conservative estimate, but for the sake of this argument accept it as 
correct. Then we see that while five hundred and fifty-six millions is 
paid to the manufacturers by the public at large, under the pretense 
that it is to benefit labor, the protected manufacturers only pay their 
labor total wages four hundred and sixty-three millions, or, allowing 
that they pay their labor nothing at all but that the public pays it all, 
then they coolly pocket about one hundred millions. Is that one hun¬ 
dred millions to protect anybody against the pauper labor of Europe? 
And this is the way the philanthropy of the average protectionist turns 
out upon analysis. 

It is not protection but supply and demand that regulate the rate of 
wages in all manufacturing industries, protected and unprotected, and 
all the pretenses of the protectionists to the contrary are false and fraud¬ 
ulent. 

AGRICULTURAL LABOR. 

I consider it safe to assume that one-half, or really more than one- 
half, of all the laborers in the United States are engaged in agricult¬ 
ural pursuits. Their strong hands and clear heads, with God’s bless¬ 
ings in rain and sunshine, by the h^p of fertile fields, absolutely 
create 1,547,901,790 bushels of corn per annum, over 500,000,000 
bushels whejit, 300,000,000 bushels of oats, besides $250,000,000 worth 
of cotton and more than $300,000,000 worth of hay (furnishing more 
than $700,000,000 of your $800,000,000 of exports). The men who 
produce all this must enter the markets of the world and have the 
value of their products fixed in competition, not with the labor of 
England, the best paid and best fed in Europe, not in competition even 
with the labor of Europe, but the value of their crops is fixed in open 
competition with the labor of Asia, Africa, and South America. No 
matter how rude and uncultivated, no matter how poorly paid or 
poorly fed, the American farmer must meet this class of labor on an 
equal footing, and yet he is asked to contribute hundreds of millions 
year by year to protect the laborers of the mills from meeting on an 
equal footing the laborers of England. With what kind of conscience, 
if any, must the protectionist be endowed who can make such a de¬ 
mand ? 

When the farmer finds that he can not sustain himself by producing 
his crop at the price that the foreign competition compels him to accept 
you do not find him coming to the Government like a mendicant and 


a coward and saying, “I am driven out of the markets of the world 
by foreign labor; you must tax my neighbors to make my losing busi¬ 
ness profitable.” If his business does not pay he changes it, lives on 
less or works harder, saves more carefully, denies himself and his family 
more, but ask the Government to take the hard earnings of another 
business and give it to him—never! Why, then, ask him to submit to 
what he himself would spurn if ofiered him? 

INFANT INDUSTRIES. 

But by way of reconciling us to being plundered the protectionist 
tells us that their object is only to help infant industries. 

In all the catalogue of protective duplicity and sharp practice there 
is nothing more transparent than this. Yet I believe that the idea that 
this system was only to hist a very short time and was really only in¬ 
tended to aid enterprises in the first years of their existence fastened 
this system upon the American people', and that if the real effect of such 
legislation had been known and understood at the beginning as we 
know and understand it, from the logic of events it never would have 
obtained a foothold in any free country. 

Hamilton, in March, 1792, in advocating an increase of tariff, said: 

The addition of 2^ per cent, will constitute an important though not an ex¬ 
cessive augmentation. Nevertheless it is proposed that it shall be only tem¬ 
porary ; and there is reasonable ground for expectation that the cause for hav¬ 
ing recourse to it will not be of long continuance. 

So far from the promises of those early times being realized the reverse 
has proved true, and instead of infant enterprises growing up and becom¬ 
ing strong under protection, they have become more and more helpless 
as they have grown, until an average tariff of 11 percent, in 1792 has 
grown to more than 40 per cent, in 1883, an increase of300 percent, in the 
protection necessary to keep these infants alive, and now we are gravely 
assured that if we reduce the 300 per cent, increase by one-fifth we will 
ruin the country. We have tried the hot-bed system long enough; let 
us now take some of the props away from the infant and teach him to 
walk alone. Such treatment may give him less fat, but it will give 
him more muscle, and I believe it would be followed by a healthy, 
natural growth and development, and that we should soon be rid of this 
infant standing around the door of the Ways and Means Ck)mmittee-room 
with a treatise on protection in his hand and eternally, Oliver Twist 
like, crying “ More! ” 

The representatives of numbers of these protected interests have ap¬ 
peared here this session and tell us solemnly that the reduction pro¬ 
posed in this bill, this moderate reduction, this return not to but 
only toward the tariff of twenty-three years ago, will absolutely destroy 
the protected industries of the country. If this is true, how long will 
their infancy last ? They seem to be younger now than when they first 
begun, as higher duties are needed now than were then to maintain 
them. 

The fact alone of the necessity for continually increasing this tax to 
keep this system up is enough to satisfy any man that the whole scheme 
is a violation of nature and that it was ‘ ‘ c*onceived in sin and brought 
forth in iniquity.” Ninety years ago this business was perhaps an in¬ 
fant, but ninety years of living on the labor of others, ninety years of 
cowering before their cousins across the water, ninety years of skulk¬ 
ing away from an open, manly competition has, I am afraid, brought 
on an old age of splendid decrepitude. But the protectionists claim that 
while the first and immediate effect of a protective tariff is to raise the 


21 


price of the protected articles, this increase in price invariably stimu¬ 
lates production, and, if the manufacture is really profitable, that so 
much capital and so many persons at once engage in the business as to 
bring down the prices by competition to a point lower than was attained 
before protection, and they point to many instances of great reductions 
m prices which have occurred subsequent to the imposition of protect¬ 
ive duties. Many, if not all of them, assume that whatever reductions 
in the prices of protected articles occur subsequent to the imposition 
of protective duties result from such imposition. 

While this argument sometimes has an air of plausibility it is ex¬ 
tremely erroneous and fallacious. That some such result should occur 
in some instances may be true, but the reduction in price produced by 
competition can not be permanently below the cost of producing the 
article. The limit, then, of the reduction of prices is the point at 
which the production yields a fair profit upon the cost of production. 
This point will be reached by healthy competition without protection. 
Too many persons en^ging in the production of any article stimulated 
by high prices must inevitably result in overproduction, and this the 
protectionists tell us is one of the greatest evils we have to contend 
against and results inevitably in a general injury to the entire business. 
The simple common sense, then, of what they advise is to bring ruin 
upon themselves if it operates as they tell us it will do. But if they 
mean that competition will stimulate the manufacturer to try to attain 
greater skill, to devise better appliances—in farmer phrase, “make 
every edge cut”—so that he may produce his goods and sell them at 
a profit, at a price that the production alone costs his less skillful and 
less thrifty neighbor, then, in that event, the more competition we 
have the more vigorous and persistent will all these efforts be. 

If this is true, and who can doubt it, then the field of competition 
should be the widest possible, not only in production, but in sales, and 
the gauge should be thrown down to the whole world to meet on terms 
of equality everywhere, and let the highest skill and best work for the 
price take the prize. In this rational contest I would have no fear of 
results for this country, because I believe that freedom and brains will 
win in every contest. 

The truth is that these reductions in price which happen to follow 
high tariff are not the result of protection at all, but are the result of a 
natural, healthy competition supplemented by improved machinery and 
improv^ methods generally, and for this improved machinery we are 
indebted to the inventive genius of the world and not to protection. 
The invention and successful operation of a cotton-picker will reduce 
the price of cotton, and this will cheapen cotton goods; and then I ex¬ 
pect to see some protectionist devoutly thankful that protection has 
invented a cotton-picker. Just for the world as they now claim that 
steel rails have been reduced by protection, while they and all the world 
know that they have been brought down by Bessemer’s invention, and 
that but for the monopolists and protectionists they would have been 
brought down here as low as they were in free-trade England. 

It has been sometimes claimed that all the protection we need in this 
country is just enough to compensate for the difference in the cost of 
labor, and this is the statement of the Tariff Commission, but now the 
protectionists insist that with labor at the same price here as in England 
our mills can not compete with them because our mills cost so much 
more than theirs. Why do our mills cost more ? A protected man- 
u^turer before the Committee on Ways and Means, in explaining hia 


22 


business, stated that his mill cost $450,000; that a similar mill in Eng¬ 
land would cost $300,000, The machinery in his mill he stated cost 
$300,000, and that similar machinery in England would have cost about 
$200,000. The tariff tax on $200,000 worth of machinery brought from 
England here would be $90,000. Here is $90,000 out of a difference 
in cost of $150,000 accounted for in one item, and that item is a tax. 

Land and stone and sand are as cheap here as in England, certainly. 
If, then, labor was as cheap here as there what other item of cost would 
there be to run up the expense of building a mill ? 

Nothing on earth except this tax upon his machinery, his tools, his 
materials, that the protectionists insist is so necessary to build up the 
country. Then we have the imposition of the tax given as the reason for 
more tax, and the reason and the sole reason why we can not meet our 
English competitors openly and fairly. Why not remove the obstacle? 

REAL PROTECTION. 

Then real intelligent protection lies in attaining the highest possible 
intelligence in all our people, in cultivating independence and indi¬ 
viduality all over the country, and by every means possible facilitat¬ 
ing the acquisition and rapid, cheap, and safe transx)ortation of all 
machinery and supplies and appliances of every nature to the mills, 
with the fewest possible delays and at the minimum cost, instead of as 
now, by all sorts of obstructive measures, delaying and rendering more 
costly to our people all these things. 

If an American could build his mill as cheaply, get all of his material 
as cheaply, and do his work as well as an Englishman, why can he not 
meet him fairly ? Would he under such circumstances decline the con¬ 
test? Would he wish to hide himself behind obstructive laws, content 
to be whipped out of the markets of the world, and to only be able to 
hold his own home market by the help of laws which in their operation 
logically proclaim all modern facilities of commerce a curse and an evil ? 
Give our people an even start and an equal chance, and I have faith in 


the superiority of their intelligence and spirit and do not doubt their 
success for a moment. 

But situated as we now are our manufacturers are handicapped from 
the start, and with each succeeding step weight is added untQ they are 
absolutely borne down by the weight of so-called “ protection. ’' The 
system is wrong in principle, and will grow worse as it grows older until 
natural laws must assert themselves and right the wrongs of years. 


O 


i 



BONDED SPIRITS TAX-EXTENSION BILL. 


HON. 

SPEECH 

>jh' 

I. M. JORDAN, 

O IP OHIO, 


IN THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

MAKOH 25, 1884. 


WASHINGTON. 

1884 . 







SPEECH 


HON. I. 


OF 

M. JORDAN. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5265) to extend the time for the 
payment of the tax on distilled spirits now in warehouse— 

Mr. JORDAN said: 

Mr. Chairman : Since I became a member of this body I have been a 
silent, though not an inattentive observer of its proceedings. And I 
arise now to speak in support of this bill, because I would be derelict 
in the performance of my duty and unfaithful to the interests of my 
constituents if I did not do what I could to urge it upon your con¬ 
sideration. My colleague upon this floor [Mr. Follett] and myself 
represent the people of Hamilton County, which includes the city of 
Cincinnati, and constitutes the first collection district in the State of 
Ohio. Embracing two Congressional districts, that collection district 
has paid to the Federal Government since 1862 in taxes on distilled 
spirits more than $100,000,000, and it now pays on this article alone a 
tax of $25,000 per day, $200,000 per week, $800,000 a month, or the 
large sum of about $10,000,000 annually. Our district stands second 
in the United States in the manufacture of distilled spirits, and in its 
holdings is perhaps equal to any other district. Sir, one-eighth of all 
the capital invested in the manufacturing industries of Cincinnati is 
invested in this business, and it yields to her citizens a gross product 
of $30,000,000 a year. 

Our constituents, therefore, the distiller, the rectifier, the wholesale 
dealer, the banker, the merchant, the manufacturer, the mechanic, the 
laborer, all classes of our people are deeply and vitally interested in 
the bill now before this House. They would regard its defeat as a 
calamity, and would hail its passage with unfeigned delight. The 
Chamber of Commerce of our city have adopted resolutions upon this 
subject which I desire the Clerk to read and which I make part of my 
remarks. The Board of Transportation and all the great commercial 
bodies of the city have in some form or other taken similar action. 

This being the case, I regard it not only as a duty, but as a high honor 
to give expression to their views upon this subject and to advocate their 
interests upon this floor. 

And now, Mr. Chairman, in order that we may have an intelligent 
understanding of the bill now before the House, of the evils which it 
is intended to remedy, and the object which we seek to accomplish in 
its passage, let us consider the present state of the law, the hardship 
growing out of it, and the measure of relief extended by this bill. 

Under the laws of the United States as they now stand the manu¬ 
facturer of distilled spirits is required to place them as soon as made in 
a bonded or Government warehouse, and to pay a tax thereon of 90 
cents per gallon. This tax under the law must be paid as fast as the 
spirits are removed from the warehouse; and, whether removed or not, 
the whole amount must be paid within three years from the time of its 
entry into the warehouse. It will thus be seen that the Government 



4 


requires the manufacturer of spirits not only to pay an enormous tax— 
a tax of 400 per cent., a tax four times greater than the cost or intrin¬ 
sic value of the article taxed—but also to pay it within three years, al¬ 
though he may not have sold or disposed of any of it or realized a 
dollar therefrom. This is a harsh law. 

The object of the bill olfered by Mr. Willis, which has been recom¬ 
mended by the Committee on Ways and Means, which has been ap¬ 
proved by the Commissioner of Internal Eevenue, and which is now 
under consideration, has for its sole and only object that of having the 
time for the payment of this tax extended two years longer. 

Now, observe that by this bill it is not sought to release anybody 
from the payment of these taxes, nor to reduce the amount of the same, 
nor release the security held by the Government for its payment. 

And now, Mr. Chairman, I claim that this law as it now stands is 
wrong in principle, unjust, unreiisonable, and unfair. 

This tax of 90 cents on the gallon, which is 400 per cent, in 
amount, and which is four times the actual or intrinsic value of the 
article produced, is not a tax upon property, nor upon production, but 
is in fact a tax upon consumption. This being so, it would seem that 
it w'ould require no argument to show that the manufacturer or owner 
should not be required to pay the tax until the time of consumption. As 
it now is, he is required to advance the money and pay the tax without 
any reference to its consumption before it is consumed, and although it 
may never be consumed. Under the practical operation of this law 
the manufacturer or owner is made to pay the tax and not the con¬ 
sumer. It thus requires the man who has invested a hundred thou¬ 
sand dollars in the manufacture of distilled spirits to invest §400,000 
in order to hold them. 

In 1868, when Congress was about to make the changes which were 
made in the internal-revenue law at that time, the Committee on Ways 
and Means, which had the subject under consideration, recognized the 
correctness of this position, and in their report to Congress said: 

The citizen ought not to be compelled to pay an excise tax upon an article 
which can neither be sold nor consumed. This is undoubtedly the true policy, 
and is in strict accordance with the principles which underlie every just system 
of taxation ; for upon no other theory or plan can the public burdens be properly 
distributed among those who ought rightfully to bear them. To tax the citizen 
upon a particular manufactured article simply because he has manufactured it, 
when without fault or negligence of his he can neither sell nor consume it, is to 
compel him to contribute more than his just proportion toward the support of the 
Government. When, however, the tax is collected upon the article sold or con¬ 
sumed, every one who pureliases or in any w'ay uses it necessarily pays his share 
of the duty. 

In a report made by Mr. Kelley, in behalf of the Ways and ISIeans 
Committee, in 1882, lie declared that this was the true principle of all 
excise taxation, and “that while the Government was justifiable in 
exacting its revenue, it was not justifiable in attempting to control the 
trade in a legitimate article of commerce by forcing the owner to sell 
at a loss on the original cost of production, or to permanently invest the 
amount of the tax in addition to that cost. ’ ’ 

In the next place, this tax is unreasonable in amount. All taxes are 
regarded by the people as burdensome, and where taxes are levied at 
the usual rate of 1, 2, or 3 per cent, upon lands, property, or money, 
they are usually paid with difficulty; but where the tax is at the enor¬ 
mous rate of 400 per cent, and is required to be paid in an arbitrary 
period of time, so that the party paying the tax is compelled to mort¬ 
gage or hypothecate his property, or to sell it upon a broken market at 
ruinous sacrifices, then indeed it becomes a burden grievous to be borne 
and an exaction unworthy of a free government. 


V 


s 


V 


vV?. 




> V • 



\ 

\ 


o 

In the next place, let it be remembered, and never forgotten, that no 
such exaction or requirement is made by the General Government in re¬ 
gard to any other article of foreign importation or domestic manufact¬ 
ure. No such arbitrary rule exists in regard to the payment of taxes 
on tobacco or fermented liquor of any kind. 

In the report made by Mr. Kelley, from the Committee on Ways and 
Means, in 1882, on this subject, he says: 

Under Uie existing internal-revenue laws, distilled spirits is the only article 
upon which the Government requires the tax to be paid before it is actually sold 
or removed for sale or consumption. In every other case the manufacturer 
keeps the article in his own possession and under his own exclusive control, 
without the payment of any tax, until he chooses to sell it or remove it for con¬ 
sumption or sale. The manufacturers of tobacco, .snuff, cigars, beer, matches, 
perfumery, cosmetics, «fec., are permitted to hold their goods until there is a con¬ 
sumptive demand for them, and pay the tax only when they sell. 

Indeed, our own Government never required the tax to be paid within 
a lixed or arbitrary period of time until 1868. And the several exten¬ 
sions of time which have since been made show that that law was not 
conceived in wisdom and that it was ruinous in its operation. And 
when w'e go to foreign countries we find that no civilized Government 
has ever adopted any such limitation, and that England, whose excise 
system is the most perfect in Europe, has never required the payment 
of the tax upon spirits until the manufacturer saw fit to dispose of them 
and until they had entered into consumption, thus recognizing and 
carrying out the principle which I have stated, that such taxes were 
never intended to be paid by the manulacturer but by the consumer. 

And, Mr. Chairman, what reason exists at the present time why the 
Government should desire to exact the payment of this money as it 
becomes due? Some attempt might be made to justify this course in 
time of war, or when the Government desired to pay its interest-bearing 
obligations, but none of these reasons now exist. We are not in a state 
of war, and there is no interest-bearing debt which it is desirable to pay. 
One hundred and fifty millions of money is lying idle in the Treasury. 
The Government desires no interest from it, and if the whole amount 
of tax upon this 80,000,000 gallons of spirits were to be paid to the Gov¬ 
ernment to-day in advance of its maturity it would do the Govern¬ 
ment no good whatever. It would be well indeed for the Government 
and the people of this country if the $150,000,000 of surplus now in 
the Treasury could be paid into the hands of the people, so that it could 
enter into the business and industries of the country. These indus¬ 
tries are to-day suffering and business is in a state of stagnation be¬ 
cause so large an amount of money has been withdrawn from circula¬ 
tion. If this bill passes this money will remain where it is for the 
present, and it will draw interest until it is paid, and the people will 
have the use of it. 

What is the condition of affairs w'hich brings this bill before Congress 
and makes its passage at this time at once necessary and proper? 
After a long period of darkness and gloom the morning broke and 
specie payment was resumed in the United States in the year 1879. 
Our people were proud, exultant, and happy. They saw their country 
carried safely through political and financial revolution. They saw 
their paper money become par with gold and silver, and that, over all 
doubts, speculations, and theories, specie payment had become a fixed 
and absolute fact. 

A new impetus was given to all kinds of business. Everything 
seemed possible to our people. New railroads were projected and built. 
Large manufacturing businesses were established in all parts of the 
country. Every bran jh of industry was stimulated, and none more so 


(> 

than the manufacture of distilled spirits. And we find that the amount 
manufactured increased from 71,892,621 gallons in 1879 to 90,355,271 
gallons in 1880; to 117,728,150 in 1882, and to 105,853,161 in 1882. 
(Since whiidi time it rapidly decreased.) This extraordinary increase 
of production was unnatural and unhealthy, in excess of the legitimate 
growth of business and far beyond the demands of trade. If the pros¬ 
perity which seemed to dawn in 1879 had continued, had business been 
prosperous in all other branches and the conditions of trade generally 
favorable and a fair foreign demand sprung up, it might have been 
possible that this production of distilled spirits would have produced 
no serious injury to the trade; but, as events have turned out, the re¬ 
sults have been disastrous and ruinous. 

An examination of the report of the Internal Revenue Commissioner 
for 1883, y>age 123, shows that while in 1879 there was but 19,212,470 
gallons of spirits in the Government warehouses, there was at the 
close of the fiscal year 1883 the enormous quantity of 80,499,993 gal¬ 
lons. The amount of the tax on this at 98 cents a gallon amounts to 
$72,449,993.70. 

From December 1, 1883, to November, 1885, the taxes on 70,000,000 
gallons will fall due and will have to be paid, unless this bill is passed. 
This tax is payable in monthly payments averaging a little less than 
$3,000,000 a month. By the 6th of July, 1884, there will be pajmble 
to the Government in taxes, $26,640,038.70. The amount of distilled 
spirits as above shown to be on hand, and likely to be thrown on the 
market, has, as everybody knows, broken the market and made it im¬ 
possible to obtain money upon these goods, or to make sales except at 
the most ruinous prices. It is a well-known fact that many persons in¬ 
terested in this business have been compelled to sell their whiskies at 
far less than their value. Sidney M. Maxwell, the superintendent of the 
Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce, in his official report for the year 1883 
says: “In many cases goods which came out of bond in 1883 have been 
sold by parties, unwilling to pay the tax, at lower prices than had been 
paid for the goods three years before. In some cases, three-year-old 
goods have been sold at 35 to40 cents per gallon in bond.” The same 
thing has occurred in other cities and is now daily happening. 

The holders of this 80,000,000 gallons of whisky can not pay this large 
amount of taxes. They have hypothecated their property; they have 
exhausted their credit; there is no market in which they can obtain 
money, and there is no purchaser for their spirits. The Government 
demands its tax; it asks that the bond shall be performed. The men 
who hold these spirits are threatened with bankruptcy; they are men¬ 
aced wdth ruin; the accumulations of a lifetime are about to disappear; 
and they now ask, not that the Government shall release them of their 
liability, not that it shall remit or reduce any of its claims, not that it 
shall give up one dollar of its demands or its securities, but they ask 
simply for time—time to look around—time to find a market; and in 
order that they may get this time they offer, by this bill, to pay all that 
the most exacting creditor could demand, interest until the money is 
paid. Shylock himself could hardly have asked more. 

And what is this industry which now makes this demand, and urges 
the passage of this l)ill ? It is a great industry, employing hundreds of 
millions of capital, hundreds of thousands of men; which is connected 
with aHmost every other business in the country; which in twenty 
years has paid to the Government $1,017,754,129, and which is now 
paying annually to the Goverement $75,000,000—a sum of money 
greater than the gross product of all the gold and silver mines of this 
country, a sum sufficient to pay the annual pensions of all the soldiers 


» < 

of all the wars in which this country has been engaged, a sum which 
by the year 1907 would pay off the whole interest-bearing debt of the 
United States, a sum which in fifteen years would amount to more 
than could be realized by a sale of all the lands of the United vStates at 
Government prices. 

Such an industry and such a business is entitled at the hands of this 
Congress to fair and liberal treatment, and instead of being treated as 
an outlaw it should receive the fostering care and protection of the 
Government. And, sir, the men who are engaged in this business in 
this country, the manufacturer, the distiller, and the rectifier, the oper¬ 
ator and dealer, are men as much interested in this Government, as 
worthy of its consideration, and as much entitled to its protection as 
are the men engaged in any other branch of industry in this country. 

The Congress and Government of the United States have always rec¬ 
ognized this industry as a legitimate one, and it has been made to pay 
more taxes than has been derived from any other business in which our 
people are engaged. Taxes are the price paid by the citizen to the 
Government for its protection, and so long as the United States con¬ 
tinue to exact from this industry great and onerous taxes, they are 
bound to deal with it justly and firirly and give it as full and ample 
protection as is given to any other business or industry. In this mat¬ 
ter taxation and protection should go together. This is the dictate of 
common sense and common honesty. . 

Mr. Chairman, some gentlemen who oppose this bill have suggested 
that if we thought this tax was oppressive why npt have the law im¬ 
posing the tax repealed. How many men on this floor are in favor of 
the repeal of the law ? 

Mr. STORM. I am in favor of it. 

Mr. JORDAN. One single man says he is in favor of it. Very few 
members would be willing to vote for it now. The suggestion does 
not come from men who are favorable to the passage of the bill or 
friendly to it. It is a mere tub to the whale, a mere suggestion to 
lead us away from the consideration of this measure. How far has 
there'been any attempt made in this House? 

Mr. STORM. I offered a bill at the first day of the session for the 
repeal of the wliole internal-revenue system, but it sleeps the sleep of 
death which knows no waking. 

Mr. JORDAN. Yes; as you might have expected. The time has 
not arrived for the repeal of the law. When we come to the consideration 
of that question many and grave questions will have to be considered. 
You will have to consider what is to be done with the $60,000,000 or 
$70,000,000 now owing to the Government for taxes on whisky in bond. 
What are we going to do in regard to the taxes already paid to the Gov¬ 
ernment onspirits? Mr. Kelley, who hasthis day talked in this House 
as if he favored the repeal of the internal-revenue system, has been here 
twenty years and never offered a bill or made an eftbrt looking to the 
repeal of that system. Mr. Kelley uses this argument to defeat our 
bill, not to repeal the law. 

If gentlemen mean what they say, then let them now propose to 
amend this bill so as to repeal the law. If they do so, they will find 
that there will not be twenty-five men on this floor who will vote at 
this time for the repeal of the internal-revenue law. Let any gentle¬ 
man try it on who believes it. 

Mr. YORK. Will the gentleman yield for a question? 

Mr. JORDAN. Certainly. 

Mr. YORK. If this tax is so high, why are you opposed to the repeal 
of the internal-revenue system ? 


r ' / 

J , ^ 


i 


Mr. JORDAN. I am not opposed to the repeal of the internal-reve¬ 
nue system, but I doubt if the time has yet arrived for it; but I say that 
the other side of the House is opposed to it. I dare you gentlemen to 
undertake now to amend this bill by proposing to repeal the internal- 
revenue system. There may be a man here and there may be a man 
there who would dare to vote for it; but there is not a single solitary 
Republican from Ohio who will vote for a repeal of the internal-revenue 
system. They will not dare to vote for a proposition that will take 
the tax off whisky and put it on the necessaries and the industries of 
life. 

Mr. DUNHAM. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a ques¬ 
tion ? 

Mr. JORDAN. With great pleasure. 

Mr. DUNHAM. You say that this side of the House is not in favor 
of a repeal of the internal-revenue tax. How many on your side are in 
favor of it ? 

Mr. JORDAN. I do not think there are very many of them; I do 
not know how many. I will tell you who I think may be in favor of 
it. It is not those who say they believe the internal-revenue system is 
an infernal system, but those who believe that the tariff system is a 
celestial system of revenue. [Laughter and applause.] 

Mr. DUNHAM. I would like to say to the gentleman that I think 
he is mistaken about the opinions of gentlemen on this side of the 
House. 

Mr. JORDAN. Why, sir, if the opinion of gentlemen on the other 
side is just, let my'good friend make a motion to amend this bill, and 
let us vote upon it. Let us see how many are in favor of the repeal of 
the internal-revenue system. 

Mr. DUNHAM. Let the gentleman make it. 

Mr. JORDAN. No; jmu should make it. You say you are in favor 
of it now. I am not urging it; I do not believe the time has come. 

Mr. REED. One corpse at a time. 

Mr. JORDAN. Yes, sir; and if that corpse comes from the other 
side, all right. 

And now, in conclusion, allow me to say, Mr. Chairman, that this 
bill is neither partisan nor sectional. It has many precedents to sup¬ 
port it, and it violates no provision of our Federal Constitution. It in 
no way encourages intemperance or promotes immorality. No human 
being will be deprived of any right by its passage, nor will the Dovern- 
ment lose one dollar of its enormous revenue derived from this industry. 
This bill is correct in principle and is j ust and fair in all of its provisions. 
Pass this bill and you will give relief to a great business and industry 
now in danger of destruction. You will prevent the bankruptcy of 
thousands of our citizens and you will have made the world understand 
that an American industry carried on by American citizens will always 
receive the fostering care and protection of an American Congress. 



EL MAHDI; OR, THE FALSE PROPHETS AND PROPHECIES 
OF FREE TRADE. 


SPEECH 


HON. JOHN A. KASSON, 

OF IOWA, 

IN THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


Tuesday, May 6, 1884. 


WASHINGTON 






£ mmsar 'V ■ ■■ *• I! ■. ■.. : 

p;, • : ^ \V " - 

3 r .• V- .^ 1 j » v/ ■ * • '■* ■' ‘ '. < • • .\ 4 '* j' **, ^ 


rj» ” \« 


^■■■^'^PLJl'ti:' ' i^-^'‘'''' . -'■• ■ I.'' 

^ "• ••■ .’K ■ '/■* ■ "'■'•si'.' _ 

;*i \> ' ■ '••lE^ ''V V ' -•®ai-''^ 


.•■ ."‘■''V ' . .):■•rTts- 


.'vf- l*T-'''? 










■ii-i f- 


fe/*. I '• ' >•■■•.■ ■ 

L^^v-'^in:,,'-'. . jif ^ ^ 


' y' * T«‘^t<J* j 










‘iraeff i: 

iri-i • ,. ;: . ■..-.V,'' : • ■■ ■ <•;■’. •>'^'.*-''.:j ^ ■*«:■ ■:). 

f-.. ■ • ,, A.;'•. ■'■ ■''''■. -'• ■■• v'-‘-^^@Ef3l-:' 

^‘'‘' ■ ' V *^i' • *S ' ■' ■ . \‘’ *-*" ' -' ■ ^ A'1 '''’""‘'M *“ * *"' ' * 

i£: A/ :.li'>:^:*'' 'Biis^'','""'"'' ■■■.' '•'; 


^rlM 


Vsw*’ .. 


■" • ■■.y 






,..;« ff.; ../t'-W. ■■, 

><2 / 


-i ‘i 


T''',*;i I ./'%'.'v, 


■: ■• V' ^‘■«: 


F '. .tJl' , >^. .'-■. :v - 4 . ■ ■ • .'.'ll -' ;->< 

A. . >c—■•. >Vx • 




Vi'' 


m Wv,:-i;.E:;%f: ■ 


%l 

.«!•» 

■>< ■ 




1 


SPEECH 

OK 

HON. JOHN A. KASSON. 


The House heingin Committeeof the AVholo House on the state of the Union, 
ami having under consideruiion the bill (U. K. 56'J3) to reduce import duties and 
■war-tariff taxes— 

Mr. KASSON said: 

Mr. Chairman : I liad hoped at the conclusion of the last Congress that 
both this House and the country would be relieved from f urther agita¬ 
tion upon the tariff long enough to enable both the House and the coun¬ 
try to know what would be the effect of the measure so recently adopted. 
1 feel that in entering upon the debate again at this time, at the very 
next session following the passage of the present law, we are traveling 
over beaten ground, and very little can be said to further enlighten 
either this body or the country upon the great questions at issue. We 
are to a great extent necessarily thrashing the straw-stack of last year’s 
harvest. 

A new bill has been formed and presented before six months had 
elapsed of the operation of the previous law. This bill was inaugu¬ 
rated under circumstances differing from any which have previously 
existed. Ordinarily a tariff bill is formed clause by clause under the 
consideration of a regular committee. This tariff bill, it is an open 
secret, sprang full-armed from the brain of our Jove of the Ways and 
^Means Committee, or of the Olympian council which surrounded him. 
We of the minority were not permitted even to share the duties of a 
nume of this promising infant when it mafle its appearance among us. 
So jealous of the child were its authors, that they allowed no change to 
be made in its garments, no suggestion to be accepted, but insisted 
that it should be brought to your baptismal font, Mr. Chairman, with¬ 
out any aid from us, there to receive its baptismal designation of “20 
percent.” 

I object, sir, to this bill in the fii-st instance because of the twelve 
schedules affected by its provisions six are aimed at the interests of 
the agriculture of the country. Tlie proposed reduction strikes a blow 
in six instances at one or another branch of this great interest, and that 
at a moment when the advocates of the bill are claiming on this floor 
that those interests are depressed and need relief. 

I object to it, because in one especial particular it touches largely the 
interests of the Northwest. I have before me a telegram received this 
morning urging that on account of its effect upon llax and flaxseed this 
bill should be defeated. It affects injuriously this interest to which 
Northwestern farmers are to-day turning their attention, as the profits 
on the whefit crop diminish. That interest is one which needs a con¬ 
tinuance of protection during its growth. Recently at the Institute in 
Boston a new process was disclo-sed for reducing the flax fiber which 


4 ^ // 



4 


now goes to waste to the condition necessary for the manufacture of linen, 
largely cheapening the process in that particular which has alone dis¬ 
abled us hitherto Irom successfully introducing the linen industry into 
the United States and adding it to the profits of our agriculture. At 
this juncture, when our people are most encouraged to develop on a 
large scale this branch of industry, when they most need an enlarge¬ 
ment of the diversity of agriculture,’comes the blow by this bill to in¬ 
flict greater discouragement than before. 

But 1 object to the bill also because as an administrative law it is 
simply impossible of administration. Not a member of the Ways and 
Means Committee can tell the importing merchant to-day what duty 
he will be obliged to pay on numerous articles in its schedules. A 
variety of questions must be asked touching every article imported 
under its provisions, and these questions must be separately investi¬ 
gated. The first is, what did the article cost; next, what is the pres¬ 
ent duty; and third, what is 80 per cent, of the present duty; fourth, 
is that above or below the tarifi’ of 1861; fifth, if below, how much 
will exactly equalize it with that tariif? In the case of cotton an ad¬ 
ditional question is to be asked: is it above or below 40 per cent, ad 
valorem ? In the case of woolen goods an additional question will be 
asked: is it above or below 60 per cent. ? In the case of metals an ad¬ 
ditional question will be propounded: is it aboveor below 50 per cent.? 

I challenge the tariffs of the world to produce a legislative enormity, 
a principle of confusion, equal to that presented by this bill which is 
now commended to the country. [Applause.] Neither in our history 
nor in any other has it been required that there shall be a complicated 
catechism, with numerous catechumens to answer the questions which 
you propose at the custom-house before a foreign article can be intro¬ 
duced into our markets. In less than six months every importing mer¬ 
chant will clamor at your doors begging you for Heaven’s sake to re¬ 
store the old or any other tiirifif, that he may be able to get his goods into 
the country at any rate of duty whatever. I repeat that as an admin¬ 
istrative measure this bill is impracticable. It is impossible of admin¬ 
istration except with great delays, hinderances, and embarrassments, 
and an additional corps of custom-house employiisfar beyond all calcu¬ 
lations of the authors of the bill. 

But, sir, another objection to the bill which may fairly be offered on 
both sides of the House to-day is this: It gives to you and me, now 
legislating for the revenue and for the interests of the country—it gives 
to you and to me no information as to what the duties are to be on the 
articles embraced in the schedules. This was so patent to the gentlemen 
who are its authors that they proposed to remedy it- for the inlbrmation 
of the House by producing these crowded pages of figures which 3 musee 
here, attempting and professing to show the present and the proposed 
rate.s of duties. But I beg gentlemen not to overlook the introductory 
note to those statements. They procured from the Treasury an expert, 
who was consulted during the progress of the construction of this bill, 
and who desired to be accurate, but could not be. He says at the head 
of the schedules what his attempt has been, and I call to that the at¬ 
tention of the committee. “It is not claimed,” says he, “that the 
column of estimated receipts and rates under act of March 3, 1883 is 
more than a proximate exhibit of results; with the changes in both cias- 
silication, and rates made in act of March 3, 1883, an absolute exhibit 
is not practicable.” Yet the committee publish that with their bill as 
giving trustworthy information to the House and the country as to what 


o 


the old duties are and the new duties are to be. I assure gentlemen that 
if they will study, even so far as I have done in the attempt to appre¬ 
hend the effect of this bill on our rates and revenue, the effects of the 
20 per cent, reduction, subject to the various conditions of 40 per cent., 
50 per cent., 60 per cent., and of the tariff of 1861, and of the addi¬ 
tional ad valorem elements introduced, you will be utterly discouraged. 
On the arrival of every ship from abroad your accountants at the cus¬ 
tom-houses will be thrown into inextricable confusion in their effort to 
ascertain what the duty is on a large part of the merchandise imported. 
You declare your wish to reuio\e the hinderances and embarrassments 
from the foreign trade of the country. Yet you have made a bill here 
which means at every step almost insurmountable hinderances and em¬ 
barrassments without precedent in the history of your legislation. The 
parties most interested in having accurate knowledge of the conditions 
upon which that foreign trade may be conducted must remain in igno¬ 
rance of them till their goods are actually passed by the custom-house. 

I object to it further because, with the exception of a single clause, it 
tosses into the lap of Canada and of Europe one-fifth of the duties which 
now flow into the Treasury of the United States without a,n equiva¬ 
lent or compensation from those countries which have imposed hin¬ 
derances and embarra.ssments on our commerce. 'With Germany still 
excluding our meat products under as we believe inaccurate pretensions; 
with I tidy doing the same; with France still resisting our just claims; 
with Spain embarrassing our commerce with her colonies; with Cana¬ 
dian obstruction, while our executive government is trying to-day to 
procure from these governments better conditions for our commerce, 
what do you now propose? At this time of all times you say to them, 
we give freely into your laps one-tifth of the revenue of the United 
States and demand nothing in return. To call that statesmanship is 
to nullify the meaning of the English language. The authors of the 
bill recognized this rule of reciprocity in the case of coal placed on the 
free-list, but in that only. They j^rovided that this clause should not 
take effect until Canada admitted our coal free instead of under a duty 
as at present. The committee was right in that. Why did you not 
extend the principle to lumber, on which the duty which Canada now 
imposes on American lumber is higher than our duty imposed on Cana¬ 
dian lumber? Yet you say to Canada, you may fill our markets; we will 
permit your lumber to come in free, and you may still by your higher 
duty shut all American lumber out of Canada. Is there justice in that? 
Such legislation does not deserve the name of statesmanship. You 
give away our interests, demanding nothing in return, when for these 
great conce.ssions of duty you could obtain important advantages to the 
commercial and industrial people of this country. For that reason, and 
I commend it to both sides of the House, I demand a new bill instead 
of going into the details of this, in order that the interests of our coun¬ 
try may be protected on more just principles of legislation. 

Ah, Air. Chairman, there are two kinds of protectionists. There 
are men on this side of the House, and some on that also, who are for 
protecting Americans and American interests. There are men on that 
side, I am sorry to Siiy, avIio are by this bill proposing to protect the 
interests of Canada and of Europe instead of the American people. 
[Applause on the Kepuhlican side.] I should much prefer—it would 
be far better than this hill—to act on a report from the Committee on 
Ways and Means asking our executive government what better con¬ 
ditions could be obtained from foreign countries in respect to the ad- 


6 


^Ti-issiovi ouf^^^ports if we would concede 20 per cent, on this schedule, 
.30 per cent, on that, or 10 per cent, on the other, or if we should put 
^certain articles on the free-list. 

Now, sir, 'we are not to be understood as objecting to all further re- 
^vision and reduction of the tariff. We do object to that sweeping 
,reduction'wtiich professedly ignores the interests of our national indus- 
,tries; which'professedly marches to free trade, and which professedly 
^repudiates the principle that we can protect our national interests 
jUnder our Constitution. We demand that this question shall lie open 
at least for another session, until a better start can be taken for the 
'care of both the commercial and the productive interests of our country. 

Mr. Chairman,'I ain'glad to have this opportunity of contesting the 
.views of gentlemen on the other side of this House who incline to free 
,trade and who rest their arguments on the uncoustitutionality of pro- 
.tection. Your position is that we have no constitutional right to im¬ 
pose a duty for any other purpose than to meet the necessary expendi- 
^tures of the Government. Am' I not right in this statement? You 
jnaintain that under our Constitution—not under the confederate, but 
under our own Constitution—we have no right to impose duties for any 
other purposes than to get revenues'for the support and maintenance 
^of the Government. Is not that your theory? [A pause.] There is 
’no denial of your position. On the other hand there are gentlemen 
, here who jrely upon the ‘ ‘ general-welfare ’ ’ clause of the Constitution, 
and say that under that we may protect our home interests. I go lur- 
* ther still, and say that under the clause giving authority for the regu¬ 
lation of foreign commerce you have a distinct, absolute, constitutional 
right to take care of the American people as against foreign interests. 
[Applause. ] 

^ One of the greatest causes of the Revolution was the continued effort 
on the part of England to rob us of all our manufacturing facilities. 
It was the desire of that government to keep us poor in all save raw 
materials. They prohibited even the erection of slitting-mills in the 
Colonies, they restrained the manufacturing of hats, and prohibited 
even the transportation of wool by water; and many other restrictions 
upon the productive interests of the country were imposed to compel 
the Colonies to receive all their manufactures from England. I beg to 
read a'statement ot historical interest, being some questions and an¬ 
swers of Benjamin Franklin before a parliamentary committee in 
17G6: 

What will be the opinions of the Americans on those resolutions?— 

Asserting the right of Great Britain to tax the Colonies. 

Answer. They will think them unconstitutional and unjust. 

Q,. Was it an opinion in America, before 1763, that the Parliament had no right 
to lay taxes and duties there? 

A. I never heard any objection to the right of laying duties to regulate com¬ 
merce, but a right to lay internal taxes Avas nev'er thought to lie in Parliament. 

Q, On what do you found your opinion that the people of America make any 
such distinction ? 

A. I know that whenever the subject has occurred in conversation it has ap¬ 
peared the opinion of everyone that We could not be taxed by a parliament 
where we were not represented. But the payment of duties, laid as regulations 
o/commerce, was never disputed. 

You observe here that Franklin, afterward one of the framers of our 
national Constitution, speaking the “unanimous” voice of the Col¬ 
onies, as he said, regarded the laying of duties as a power inherent in 
’the authority “to regulate commerce.” Imposition of duties is of it- 
^self the regulation of commerce by the custom and usage of all nations. 


7 


Lord Chatham, h few days after this testimony was given by Mr. 
Franklin, on the 14th of January, 1766, in his celebrated speech in the 
house of commons on the right of taxing America, pointed out the 
same distinction. He said: 

There is a plain distinction between taxes levied for the purjMjse of raising a 
revenue and duties imposed for the regulation of trade. 

Go with me one step further. After the defeat of the British at 
Saratoga they became convinced that by war this country could not be 
conquered. Then it was that they passed a bill, under the direction of 
Lord North, in 1778, yielding the demand of the Colonies, but too late. 
That bill declared; 

It is expedient to declare that the King and Parliament of Great Britain will 
not impose any duty or tax for the purpose of raising a revenue in the Colonies, 
except only such duties as may be expedient to impose for the regulation of com~ 
meroe, 

I should be glad to read you what that eminent historian, for whose 
long-preserved life the whole country is grateful—what Mr. Bancroft 
says on the occasion of the formation of our present Constitution; and 
to read from Hildreth’s History of the United States what he says. 
But enough to say that at the close of the war with England, as soon as 
peace was made, we were deluged with foreign goods, even from the 
miserable second-hand shops of Dublin and of London; that our people 
incurred debts they could not pay, and that in a short time they im¬ 
ported thirty million dollars’ worth of goods, and could export only 
$9,000,000; that the country was drained of its specie, and that impov¬ 
erishment and poverty everywhere prevailed. 

It was under these circumstances that our Constitution was framed. 
It was to secure the regulation of commerce by the imposition of duties 
that that clause was put into the Constitution. In the light of Frank¬ 
lin’s statements, of Chatham’s speech, of the British act of Parlia¬ 
ment; in the light of the condition of the American Colonies as certified 
by authenic history, it is an established fact that our fathers under¬ 
stood by the right to regulate commerce with foreign countries the right 
to regulate it by the imposition of duties. That fact was further estab¬ 
lished by the first general act passed by the First Congress which met 
under the American Constitution. In the very title which they gave to 
this first act imposing duties they declared it to be “for the encourage¬ 
ment and protection of manufactures ” in this country. And yet gen¬ 
tlemen say, and my friend from Kentucky [Mr. Blackburn] said an 
hour ago, tliat our constitutional power was limited to raising revenue 
for the purpose of revenue only, and therefore that there was no right 
whatever in Congress to impose duties for the regulation of commerce 
and thus protecting the interests of our own country and of our own 
people. 

Now, sir, in proceeding with my argument, I turn to that offered by 
the eloquent gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hurd]. If your right exists, 
if it has been established in this country from the beginning of the 
Government to have two objects in view in levying duties, one the rais¬ 
ing of revenue and the other the regulation of commerce, then you gen¬ 
tlemen can go with us the next step in the inquiry, whether such duties 
imposed for the regulation of commerce are beneficial to this country 
or not. The gentleman from Ohio, in his admirable speech the other 
day, said: 

Subject to the necessities of the Government, every man has the right to sell 
where he can get the best price for what he has produced and buy where he can 
buy most cheaply. 


8 


He treats our Government and our people as two independent bodies; 
the Government on one side, the people on the other; the Government 
to take money out of their pockets and the people to submit without 
benefits in return. The Government may tax to fill its own coffers, but 
it can pass no legislation to refill the empty pockets of the people. The 
Government may take from the people, but it can give nothing to the 
people in return. I dissent by the width of the heaven from the earth 
from that proposition. There are no two adverse sides in this country 
as Government and people. The people are in the Government and 
the Government is in the people, thank God! [Applause.] 

What the people have a right to do for the Government the Govern¬ 
ment has a right to do for the people within the limits of the Constitu¬ 
tion. The Government is not a power of exaction alone. It is a power 
of protection also to the interests of the American people. It has been 
for most of its existence a power of blessing; it ought still to be a power 
of blessing in all its years to come. When, if ever, the theory offered 
by the gentleman from Ohio shall be established by the laws of the 
land, and the Government exhausts without protecting in return, that 
moment will the people find an opportunity to choose a different gov¬ 
ernment, and one which can bless as well as burden the citizens who 
are subject to its laws. 

Sir, I am reminded of what John Quincy Adams, as a member of the 
minority of the Committee on Manufactures, said in 1833: 

It has been said there is no philosophic falsehood so absurd but it has been 
maintained by some sublime philosopher. Surely there is no invention so sense¬ 
less, no tiction so baseless or so base but it has been maintained by some learned, 
intelligent, amiable, and virtuous but exasperated and bewildered statesman. 

It may be said here that in the course of this debate there is no eco¬ 
nomic theory so baseless, no free-trade sophism so absurd, that some 
“exasperated and bewildered statesman” of that flock has not accepted 
it and advocated it on this floor. [Laughter and applause.] • 

There is on the other side of the water a sort of religious meteor, “an 
exasperated and bewildered ’ ’ fanatic, who has appeared in the deserts of 
Africa, and the whole world has become familiar with the name of El 
Mahdi, the false prophet. He preaches a new doctrine, and insists that 
his followers shall accept and circulate it through the world. Are there 
not El Mahdis in America? I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the El 
Mahdis on this floor, the false prophets of free trade, surpass in the ex¬ 
traordinary character of their teachings and in the extraordinary abun¬ 
dance of their prophecies the original El Mahdi of the Soudan. [Ap¬ 
plause.] 

Let me refer to some of these teachings and prophecies. They say 
that protection creates monopolies, gives a bounty to individuals, en-^ 
hances prices by the amount of the duty, is robbery and o^ipression 
of labor, obstructs xrade, hits robbed America of half the markets 
of the world, and impoverishes the country. In the fervor of his 
eloquence my honored friend from Ohio [Mr. Hurd] said the other 
day that “ the fruits of protection in America are want, penury, and 
' starvation.” So teach our El Mahdis. 

I wish to examiue these teachings. How does protection create 
monopolies? Must you assail not only the laws of your country, its 
interests, and its history, but must you assail even the standard dic¬ 
tionaries of Webster and of Worcester in their definition ofmonoiDoly? 
A monopoly, they tell you, is that which one man or one set of men 
alone can do or possess. It is a privilege confined to one from which 


9 


others are excluded. Now, where is your American industry which is 
not open under our legislation, and on equal terms, to rich and poor, 
to high and low, and even to the foreigner who comes upon our soil ? 
Where is the element of monopoly in a system which creates conditions 
for increasing rivalry and competition ? Where is your monopoly in a 
system under which where ten manufacturing establishments existed 
years ago ten hundred exist now to supply the wants of the country ? 
Where, I repeat, is the monopoly in a system of protection which enor¬ 
mously augments competition? The only monopoly that threatens to 
be created is the British monopoly, gentlemen, that you propose to 
foster by this bill and its sequences. You say this is the first step in 
the progress toward free trade. I speak now of all the three gentle¬ 
men, the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means [Mr. Mor¬ 
rison], the gentleman from Ohio whose speech was most loudly ap¬ 
plauded [Mr. Hurd], and the gentleman from Kentucky who last 
spoke [Mr. Blackburn]. I assume that they substantially concur. 
If I am incorrect let me be corrected now, that 1 may make the proper dis¬ 
tinction. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. H f jrd] declared this to be the 
first step, and that you are going on with reductions—how much? Ten 
per cent., 20 per cent., 30 per cent., or 50 per cent.; the country knows 
nothing of the result at which you will ultimately arrive. If you suc¬ 
ceed and by accident or design reach that point where any one of the 
industries of this country is substantially broken down and its doors 
closed, then will you arrive at the establishment of a monopoly, and 
that monopoly in Canada, in England, or in Europe, and not in this 
country. [Applause.] So long as you foster American production 
and enable it to grow, so far you increase that competition which de¬ 
stroys monopoly. 

Is it a bounty to individuals? I have had occasion heretofore to im¬ 
plore this House to recognize the fact that for some reason or other the 
old principle of patriotism is decaying in this land. I repeat to-day 
that this free-trade argument on the other side shows that the element 
of American patriotism has somehow disappeared from too many of the 
Democratic breasts in public life. Why was this protective principle 
established? Why was it introduced in the first act of the First Con¬ 
gress? Why was it enlarged in 1816 with an addition of 42 ;Mir cent, 
of duties at a single jump? Why was it further continued in 1824? 
Why was it still further continued in 1828 ? Why was it again perpet¬ 
uated in the bill of 1832? It was so perpetuated because our patriotic 
fathers of both parties knew that no nation in the world could be in¬ 
dependent if it did not have the means of self-support both in peace 
and in war. [Great applause.] 

We are of that kind of protectionists to-day. It is not bounty to in¬ 
dividuals; it is bounty to the country of our birth. It is not because 
a factory is in my district or a mine in yours that we are protectionists. 
I am a protectionist because my country can not live in the presence of 
the great poweis of the world, liable to war on land and to disaster by 
sea, without she has in her power, within her grasp, the means of 
clothing her people, of feeding her people, of defending her people,sum¬ 
mer and winter, in peace and in war. [Renewed applause.] 

From the beginning of the Government that has been the principle 
of protection. It is to make our people independent, and you can trace 
it step by step before the Revolution, after the Revolution began, after 
the peace, in the formation of the Constitution, and in the laws passed 
under the Constitution. We stand here to-day supported, I regret to 


10 


say, by only a small minority on that side of the House; we stand here 
upon the platform of our fathers, both Democratic and Whig. The 
Demcratic majority of this House in this latter time has left that plat¬ 
form, has introduced a new interpretation of the American Constitution, 
which denies the right to protect our own people. The gentleman 
from Kentucky, in his speech just made, has attempted to support that 
interpretation by pointing above us to that coat-of-arms of Kentucky, 
with its motto “United we stand, divided we fall.” I reclaim that 
motto given to Kentucky by Henry Clay himself, the constant supporter 
of the American protective system. [Great applause. ] 

It was Henry Clay who forty years ago uttered words in the debate 
which preceded that fatal law of 1833 which we are now asked to re¬ 
enact in principle—words full of warning for us to-day. Speaking of 
the probable fall of the protective policy in the then condition of par¬ 
ties in Congress, he said: “ The fall of that policy would be productive 
of consequences calamitous indeed.” I ask the Clerk to re^ the pas¬ 
sages I have marked. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

But in my opinion, sir, the sudden repeal of the tariff policy would bring ruin 
and destruction on the whole people of this country. There is no evil, in my 
opinion, equal to the consequences which would result from such a catastrophe. 
♦ * * And what is the just complaint, on the other hand, of those who sup¬ 
port the tariff? It is that the policy of the Government is vacillating and un¬ 
certain, and that there is no stability in our legislation. Before one set of books 
are fairly opened it becomes necessary to close them and to open a new set. 
Before a law can be tested by experiment another is passed. Before the present 
law has gone into operation, before it is yet nine months old, passed as it was 
under circumstances of extraordinary deliberation, the fruit of nine months’ 
labor; before we know anything of its experimental effects, and even before it 
commences its operations, we are required to repeal it. 

Mr. KASSON. Thus you find that Kentucky then was of a different 
opinion from Kentucky to-day. And I would wrest back from the 
hands of my eloquent friend the motto which he misappropriates in aid 
of free trade and apply it to the holy cause of American labor and home 
interests. [Applause.] Here and now I beg to say to the protection 
members of that side of the House, ‘ ‘ United we stand, divided we fall, ’ ^ 
and our country falls with us. Acting on the principle of that motto 
we shall defeat this bill and continue the prosperity of our country. 
{Applause.] 

I ask you to mark the similarity of conditions in 1833 and now. The 
country was prosperous then; it is prosperous now. After 20 per cent, 
reduction under that law was effected the ruin and all the evils which 
Mr. Clay predicted fell upon our unhappy country in 1837. You pro¬ 
pose now to break down the polic 3 '^, beginning with the same reduction 
of 20 per cent. We have not had one year’s test of the existing law; 
and you propose to sweep it away and introduce this conflicting and im¬ 
possible system of assessing one-fifth less duties. Your effort, if suc¬ 
cessful, will be followed by like disastrous consequences. The law of 
1833 provided that of the existing duties all were to be taken off down 
to 20 per cent, in nine and a half years. This change was effected by 
a reduction of 10 per cent, in January, 1834, 10 per cent, in 1836, 10 per 
cent, in 1838, 10 per cent, in 1840, half the residue in January, 1842 
and the other half in July, 1842. ’ 

Now, you are proposing a reduction of 20 per cent, only; but you 
have avowed by the utterances of your leaders that you intend to go 
on further hereafter; that this is only the first step. And you propose 
to go on in this way without notifying the years in which you will do 


11 


it. The law of 1833 provided for a gradual reduction, and it gave ten 
months’ notice before it was to go into effect. It was passed March 2, 
1832, and was not to take effect until January, 1834. By this bill you 
provide for no notice at all. It is to go into effect on the 1st of July 
next, though if it should pass it can not pass before the 30th of June. 
You are reckless in your dealing with the interests of the country. 
Aiming at free trade you have no motive to consider the interests of 
the country. Your principle does not admit it. The chairman of the 
CJommittee on Ways and Means said in his speech that if the bill were 
to be formed upon the principle of protecting American industry, then 
the people should turn it over into the hands of the friends of protec¬ 
tion. I accept that declaration, and I wait for that time speedily to 
come when the people will turn this question over into the hands of 
the friends of protection, whose blows they would rather receive than 
the dangerous caresses which the enemies of their industry are offering 
them ill their false teachings and false prophecies. 

I pixss without special comment the revival of our industries and of 
popular prosperity after the restoration of a protective tariff in 1842. 
I also pass without comment the recurrence of disaster and distress 
in 1857, after the free-trade politicians had again reduced the tariff to 
mere revenue rates, without discriminating for protection. It is enough 
to say that the people turned out of power in 1860, as they did in 1840, 
the reckless party which persistently ignored the rights of American 
industry and labor. Since 1861 your tariff has been continuously and 
unquestionably protective, and it has been one continuous history of 
prosperity, with the exception of 1873, when the whole world suffered 
from panic, from which our country, still under the protective policy, 
was the first to recover. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have presented this sketch of the period of 
1833-’37 to show the effect of a persistent horizontal reduction. We 
then had a surplus of revenue to be got rid of. We have a surplus of 
revenue, it is claimed, now to be got rid of. Then it was done by a 
gradual flat reduction of duties, as you propose to do it now by hori¬ 
zontal gradation of duties. It was then accomplished, and emptied the 
Treasury most effectually. I believe if accomplished now it will empty 
the Treasury far beyond your desire. It emptied the pockets of the 
people then, and brought them to ruin, absolute and universal ruin. 
I believe the same result, because of the same causes and conditions, 
will follow if adopted now. 

Then it was effected by the votes of a nearly solid South, headed by 
South Carolina. In 1832, at the very time of the consideration of this 
question, that State was organizing troops to resist the power of the 
United States. Then it was that South Carolina passed an act declar¬ 
ing that the revenue laws of the United States should not be executed 
in South Carolina, and were null and void. The South stood together 
for free trade; and while, thank God, South Carolina proposes no such 
extreme measure now, I am sorry to observe that the South does stand 
to-day largely for repeating the ruinous process of 1833. They are de¬ 
manding a reduction of the duties now with far less reason than they 
demanded it then, because the very industries which have grown pros¬ 
perous under the protective system have since that time been largely 
developed in the Southern States. On the testimony of their own citi¬ 
zens prosperity is spreading over the entire South as it has never spread 
before. Mines, forges, furnaces, factories, railroads have largely in¬ 
creased, and manufactures have been extraordinarily developed in 


12 


Northern Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Virginia. 
Farms and real estate in their neighborhood have shared the general 
advance. Tlie home consumption of cotton has increavSed from 20 per 
cent, in 1800 to over 30 per cent in 1883. In a word, all the elements 
of national development have advanced as rapidly in the South as in 
the North. Prosperity has not only dawned upon them, but it beams 
with the light of the midday sun all over the regions of the South. 
[Applause.] 

Sir, I repeat my regret that we should find the South still lingering 
in the bondage of the old South Carolina interpretation of the Consti¬ 
tution, and still declaring that free trade must be Ibrced upon the pros¬ 
perous North, because in some Sfiites they have not yet reached that 
degreeof prosperity which prevails in the Northern States of the Union, 
with their tliversified industries. 

The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Blackburn] appealed to the 
statistics of the different States of the Union to show that there was 
larger per capita of wealth in the manufacturing States than in the 
States from which manufactures were largely absent. Why, then, does 
henot encourage in the South thegro wing manufactures, which bringin- 
crea^ of weidth, instead of depriving the prosi>erous States of the very 
elements of their prasperity. Insfcead of diminishing the w'ealth of 
others I would invoke that gentleman to encourage the introduction 
into his own and other States of diversified industries, bring among his 
own people these new elements of wealth, and then he will find that 
the per ciipita of wealth amongst them will grow as rapidly as it is 
growing anywhere else in the Union. [Applause.] 

Time fails me, Mr. Chairman, to speak at length of the effects of 
protection on the pros{>erous history of my country. Is it true that 
thesystem is one of robbery and of oppression ? Has it ol)structed trade; 
has it robbed Americivof lialf the markets of the world; has it impov¬ 
erished the country ? 

In these two decades of protection the population of the country has 
risen from ;>1,000,000 to 51,000,000. It has not, then, embarrassed the 
unprecedented growth of the jwpulation of the country. The immi- 
^ation, chiefiy of lalwrers, has risen from 150,000 in 1860 to 593,000 
in 1880. It hius not, then, been opposed to the interests of labor, for labor 
migrates from worse to better, and not froin better to worse. The value 
of farms has risen from $320,000,000 to $10,197,000,0(K). The annual 
value of tlieir prorlucts has risen from $1,6(X),000,000 to $3,600,000,000, 
according to Mr. Dodge, the statistician of agriculture. It has not 
then im]i)overishe<l or even retirded the farming interests. 

Our production of manufictures has risen from $1,885,0(X),000 to 
$5,369,(X>0.(X)0. Our exports of domestic manufactures have risen from 
$45,000,0(h) to $lll,000,(h)0. Our whole domestic exports have ad¬ 
vanced li-om $373,000,000 to $825,(M)o,000. Our total imiwrte have 
advanced from $362,000,(X)0 to $751,000,000. It has not, then, ob¬ 
structed but promoted trade, with the balances in our I’avor. The total 
wealth of the United States has increased by the census Jrom $16,000 - 
000,000 to $43,000,000,000. Its annual increase is put by a free-trade 
economist at $825,000,000—more than double that of any other nation 
in the \\a>: Id. 

Yet i:i Mahdi l)y the mouth of one of his prophets says that “the 
fruits of protection in America are want, penury, and stan^ation ” and 
lifts up before us “the protection giant of robbery and oppression.” 

1 turn now to the false prophecies of free trade. It is directlv de- 


13 


dared that if you would introduce free trade into the United States all 
the markets ol‘ the woild will then be opened tons in generous rivalry. 
My eloquent friend from Ohio promises us, in the exuberance of his 
rhetoric, two thousand millions of people who will be waiting lor our 
supplies. These El Mahdis of ours, like the false prophets of ani iquity, 
make up for their deficiency of facts in the jjast bj'' liberal promises for 
the future. In this case they enlarge the figures of human history in 
order to create a p()i)ulation out of their imagination to be supplied by 
an imaginary condition of free trade in theUnited States. [Applause.] 

It is a slight excess in the world’s population of only about six hun¬ 
dred millions, including the breechless sons of Africa. [Laughter and 
applause. ] 

Sir, after the establishment of free trade are you not subject to the 
same competition of the whole world ? Will not the cheapest still be 
first sold in the Ibreign market? Can you sell a bushel of American 
grain against a l)ushel of Indian wheat, unless you can furnish it as 
cheaply as the Indian? Can the manufacturer find a market unless he 
can sell cheaper than free-trade England ? It is self-evident that the 
elements of production must be as cheap with us as with any other for¬ 
eign country before we can take away the markets from it. Our man¬ 
ufacturing plant has cost more, our rate of interest is higher, our labor 
costs higher wages, and you will still, even under absolute free trade, 
have these embarrassments to contend with before you can drive foreign 
countries from any market of the round world which they now possess. 
Your proposition would simply cost us our home market by turning 
it over to foreigners, without enabling our people to manul'acture on 
equal conditions with those which foreigners now enjoy. Even wheat . 
can be delivered in New York to-day from India as cheaply as it can 
be delivered in Liverpool, and under the menace of this competition 
you ask us to take olf one-fifth of the duty which saves the wheat 
market of this country from the surplus of India, with which you have 
been threatening our farmers in this debate. 

Yes, free trade must open up the markets of our own country to the 
products of all Europe and Asia, or we are told by the gentleman from 
Ohio that^— 

Before January next the price of wheat will be so low that it will not pay the 
cost of production, and the corn raised on tlie Western prairies will be burned 
again for fuel, as was the case years ago. When that time arrives the farmers 
will be beggars in the midst of theirown plenty and paupers by the sideof their 
own golden gathered sheaves. 

And the Democrats burst out with applause as he made that predic¬ 
tion of misfortune to our farmers. Sir, the census shows that there has 
been an increase beyond all precedent in value of all of the products of 
the farmers of this country during this period of protection. Even 
wheat has advanced on the average 15 percent, in price. From 1847to 
1861 the average was $1.48xV per bushel in New York; from 1863 to 
1877 the average was $1.69]^f. Everything produced on the fiirm has 
on the average increased in value throughout the length and breadth of 
the land under the principle of protection. Meanwhile the manufactures 
which our farmers buy have greatly fallen in price. Our American 
system has produced an unexampled aggregation of wealth and distrib¬ 
uted it among our people of all classes; it has saved labor from pan perism 
and made the United States the admiration of the world. In this con¬ 
dition of our country the eloquent gentleman from Ohio is obliged to 
invoke dumb and inanimate nature to support his theories. Every 
ripple of the water upon the seashore, he says, is an invitation to free 


14 

trade, and every stormy wave a denunciation of our existing policy. He 
declares that— 

The culture and. the chivalry of the nation, long anxious for this hour, are 
ready to take the lead. 

I recall his eyes, Mr. Chairman, from the sandy shores and dreary 
wastes of ocean and from the beggared homes of labor abroad. Let 
him look upon our farms, into our contented villages and thriving 
towns, and into the school-houses of town and country, where the 
children of toil and of wealth sit side by side in preparation to become 
sovereign citizens of a great and free Republic. Every murmur of in¬ 
struction that rises from a myriad of these school-houses in valley and 
on hilltop is an invitation to maintain our system of home industry 
and good wages which has made our people happy and our nation great. 
[Applause.] 

And I point him, sir, to the million of laborers who at eventide 
come from the caves of the earth, where they produce the infinite 
value of ore and coal, both more precious than gold, and to the other 
million who come forth with the declining sun from the doors of 
blazing furnace and forge and from countless factories in mountain 
valleys and on the plains. These all unite against the degradation of 
wages and of labor involved in free trade. Their concentrated voice, 
more powerful than the roar of the inanimate billow, is lifted up in 
denunciation of the reckless Democratic and free-trade policy which 
you seek to inaugurate to-day. [Applause.] “ The culture and the 
chivalry ’’ may be ready for it, but the enterprise and the labor which 
have made your country prosperous and powerful protest against it. 

Ah, says El Mahdi, away with protection! It enriches you, but 
away with it! Every day’s sun, according to your own prophet Mulhall, 
“eees an addition of two and a half million dollars to the accumulated 
wealth of the Republic, which is equal to one-third of the daily accumu¬ 
lations of manldnd.” Still away with it! But we will not throw 
' away this giant’s shield of our national defense, under whose shelter, 
with God’s blessing, we have reached the foremost rank of the nations 
of the world. We will fight the battle out and we will win the victory. 
All hail to that giant of protection who strews his pathway with gold 
and plants all its borders with the flowers of popular comfort! [Great 
applause.] 


O 








RlTZ-JOIi^^ I^OKTER. 


SPEECH 


HON. J. WARREN KEIFER, 

OF OHIO, 


HOUSE OF EEPRESENTATIVES, 


Friday, January 25, 1884. 



WASHINGTON. 




? t ■» ►; * • ^ ‘ 







I V' 

4 * < 


\\gy s • 


n<"l, /,• 

■'X "<i‘ . .'■ ' Vi' ;*“. . ,' ' 

!:•/ .■,," ; yi . 

• , -v . ‘ 1 * ‘ ' • ' • ^ 






• * 4 l * •' 

’’■’T ’j 

• • i C' *» 


■■ '■ ' ’ '■ ¥^' ■ ''■■C 


%• H 


A' 


:>s ''•*■ 


r»i.i» 1 “ '-f' '•' ' 


. . . 






t v 


\ f. 


V 




W% ■ • ■ 

'^:t 4 V 1 -At 


? , 


7^ 


fifi *> 

* ■' ml 


l~«IHl I 4. 


rjvVf 


A.f , . 


' I* 




i-' -v 


11 


4 I 




., l\ 


ift'lfer; 




_ 


♦ < 


tf. 


.!. Jr". *’ ** 

- ■■■'' ''■’ ,.,;,:;:,,,-i -t 


7 




v>,{^ _ 




s. 






^1. 


r ^TTi^' 


♦av 


fy 


% 




’'1 

, ■ ;^' ■ . ■ * 


I*. .,» 




4<‘ 




.*V 


^ '<1 




r'Z'k' 




« c’* • ‘N ^ 
♦'if* » 

j 


/ :v i' V w ^ 

■ V '1 




r .4 > 




i.t. 4 .ti 


44 




V 


I* 


■?o. 




•■ A 


.^ 7 ' 




I * 


r*' 4 .-^ t 






,-i .s •■ . 


. ‘V' 


^ I . , \i 






.i; • • ,:^r> 

, ‘•, ,;-yi.V- . ' T. 


• 






H I''':?'!'' HWKMfVS .'•■. ^' ■■ V'i'S 




t ^ 




.n 




T.v; .v^‘' 


F v'^ 




3 






/ : ». 


' r' . f 

_jyf»v *..4 . 

'• :v"'v,' Vf,;."''i ■ ’ 

■ ' Ji* 'Mi 


.■ ■^' ’3‘> 








-i 




P. 


4’ 


' tti N 


\\ 










.• > 




fi^‘ 


't ' 


}v?aifj( 'jfe 






{!*; 


,!« \'€ 


M' 






.{/ 


'. .. f 




»* 


1 


/.'..’ 


ri -f. 


ii>. ViA,"; 









SPEECH 


OF 


HON. J. WAEKEN KBIFER. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole, and having under consideration 
the bill (H. R. 1015) for the relief of Fitz-John Porter— 

Mr. KEIFER said: 

Mr. Chairman : It is always a noble and gracious thing to do an act 
even of tardy justice to a fellow-man. There are, however, duties 
paramount to this where public safety is concerned. Where to vindi¬ 
cate an individual who claims to have been wronged involves the 
public weal it becomes important that no mistakes are made. Gen¬ 
eral Porter seeks legislative action here to relieve him from a sentence 
of a legally constituted court-martial. 

During this long debate it has seemed to me we were talking about 
a great many irrelevant things, forgetting the cardinal and real ques¬ 
tions involved in this bill. 

Let us first see of what he was charged and convicted. The charges 
on which General Porter was tried were two. 

First. Violation of the ninth Article of War. The part of that arti¬ 
cle applicable to his case is as follows: 

Any officer or soldier * * * who shall disobey any lawful command of his 
superior officer shall suffer death or such other punishment as shall * * * be 
inflicted upon him by the sentence of a court-martial. 

The first specification to this charge relates to the violation of the 6.30 
p. m. order of August 27, 1862, given by Ills commanding general, to 
march at 1 a. m. of the following morning from Warrenton Junction to 
Bristoe Station, so as to be at the latter place by daylight the following 
morning. 

The second specification to the same charge relates to the disobedi¬ 
ence of the joint order of General Pope to him and General McDowell, 
dated August 29, 1862, and delivered to him (Porter) on the morning 
of that day. 

The third specification to this charge relates to the failure to obey 
the order of his commanding officer, dated 4.30 p. m., August 29,1862, 
and delivered to him shortly after its date, which order, among other 
things, commanded him to push forward into action at once on the enemy's 
flank and if possible on his rear." 

Charge 2. A'iolation of the fifty-second Article of War, which reads, 
omitting parts not material to Porter’s case: 

Any officer or soldier who shall misbehave himself before the enemy, run away, 

* * * or si>eak words inducing others to do the like, * * * every such 

offender, being duly convicted thereof, shall suffer death, or such other punish¬ 
ment as shall be ordered by a sentence of a general court-martial. 

The first specification supporting this charge alleges a disobedience of 
the 4.30 p. m. order of August 29, 1862, and that he (Porter) “did re~ 

rO 



1 


treat from advancing forces of the enemy without any attempt to engage them 
or to aid the troops who were already fighting greatly superior numhersf’ &c. 

Specification 2 to this charge is: 

^ That the said Maj. Gen. Fitz-John Porter, being with his army corps on Fri¬ 
day, the 29th of August, 1862, between Manassas Station and the tield of a bat¬ 
tle then pending between the forces of the United States and those of the 
rebels, and within sound of the guns, and in the presence of the enemy, and 
knowing that a severe action of great consequence was being fought and that 
the aid of his corps was greatly needed, did fail all day to bring it on to the field, 
and did shamefully fall back and retreat from the advance of the enemy with¬ 
out any attempt to give them battle, and without knowing the forces from which 
he shamefully retx’eated. This near Manassas Station, in the State of Virginia, 
on the 29th of August, 1862. 

Specification third to this charge is: 

That the said Maj. Gen. Fitz-John Porter being with his army corps near the 
field of battle of Manassas, on the 29th of August, 1862, while a severe action was 
being foQght by the troops of Major-General Pope’s command, and being in the 
belief that the troops of the said General Pope were sustaining defeat and retir¬ 
ing from the field, did shamefully fail to go to the aid of the said troops and gen¬ 
eral, and did shamefully retreat away and fall back with his army to the Ma¬ 
nassas Junction, and leave to the disasters of a presumed defeat the said army, 
and did fail, by any attempt to attack the enemy, to aid in averting the misfor¬ 
tunes of a disaster that would have endangered the safety of the capital of the 
country. This at or near ManassaS station, in the State of Virginia, on the 29th 
day of August, 1862. 

General Porter was, on January 10, 1863, by a lawfully constituted 
court-martial, found guilty on the three sxiecifications to the first 
charge; and, with the exception of some unimportant words, he was 
found by such court guilty on the three specifications stated to the 
second charge. The court thereupon found him guilty on both the 
charges. 

The sentence of the court was as follows: 

And the court do therefore sentence him, Maj. Gen. Fitz-John Porter, of 
United States volunteers, to be cashiered, and to be forever disqualified from 
holding any office of trust or profit, under the Government of the United 
States. 

After a careful review of the ca.se the President of the United States 
approved and confirmed the proceedings in language following: 

January 21,1863. 

The foregoing proceedings, findings, and sentence in the foregoing ease of Maj. 
Gen. Fitz-John Porter are approved and confirmed, and it is ordered that the 
said Fitz-John Porter be, and he hereby is, cashiered and dismissed from the 
service of the United States as major-general of volunteers, and as colonel and 
brevet brigadier-general in the regular service of the United States, and for¬ 
ever disqualified from holding any office of trust or profit under the Govern¬ 
ment of the United States. 

ABKAHAM LINCOLN. 

fhe court-martial that tried General Porter w as composed of the dis¬ 
tinguished officers, namely: 

Maj. Gen. D. Hunter; Maj. Gen. E. A. Hitchcock; Brig. Gen. Rufus 
King; Brig. Gen. B. M. Prentiss; Brig. Gen. James B. Ricketts; Brig. 
Gen. Silas Casey; Brig. Gen. James A. Garfield; Brig. Gen. N. Buford, 
and Brig. Gen. J. P. Slough. Joseph Holt, Judge-Advocate-General 
of the United States Army, was the judge-advocate and recorder of the 
court. Reverdy Johmson, a most eminent attorney, with other counsel, 
represented the defense. 

Of the men, the distinguished officers who composed this court, 
two alone are living, the president of the court and General James B. 
Ricketts. 

]Mr. CALKINS (from his seat). Also General Prentiss. 


Mr. KEIFEK. xVnd I am informed that General Prentiss is also 
living. My information was otherwise. 

But all the others have gone to render their final account to their 
God, and we are here to-day, as I shall show before I close, trying in 
the most singular, unjustifiable, and strange way to heap condemnation 
on all of those gallant men, and for the purpose of vindicating, as it is 
called here upon the floor, a man who was condemned after having had 
a trial which was fairly conducted, as was said not only by the Judge- 
Advocate-General of theXTnited States, but by that most distinguished 
of counsel who represented the defense, Reverdy Johnson. 

It is a singular and strange fact that during all that long trial there 
was no serious exception taken to any ruling of that court. 

The gentleman from New York [Mr. Slocum], in the course of the 
remarks made by him in the opening of this debate, a few days ago, 
assailed this court, and went aside to say that General Rufus King went 
down from his high ix)sition as a member of the court and became a 
principal witness in the case. I was curious to know how much of trath 
there was in that assertion, and I find among the hundreds and hundreds 
of pages of testimony that the testimony of Rufus King is comprised in 
a space of less than one-quarter of a page of the printed report, and that, 
too, of a comparatively immaterial character. It is not unusual or 
irregular for a judge in a civil court to give testimony to a jurj'. But 
this was the only thing that could be magnified into an attack upon that 
honorable court. These men were distinguished for conservatism; they 
were not politicians. Many of them were graduates of West Point. 
Some of them were men of mature years, and all were careful and 
jealous of the rights of their fellow-ofiicei'S. All of them were men 
certainly the peers, and, if we are to test them by what we see in the 
record, more than the peers, of the distinguished men who assume, it is 
claimed, to overrule the result of their calm, deliberate actions. 

It is proposed to overturn the whole action of this high court, the 
members of which were solemnly sworn to discharge their dnty im¬ 
partially and fairly, and this on the report of an unauthorized board of 
inquiry convened sixteen years after General Porter was legally tried 
and convicted. It is prcjmsed now to condemn the membei's of the 
court and the action of President Lincoln in approving its sentence by 
adopting a report of such board made partly upon unsworn statements 
laid before it, and on statements made by selected witnesses friendly to 
General Porter, to whom in no case was more than an extrajudicial 
oath administered. Many of the material witnesses before the court 
were not summoned before this board to testify, others whose testi¬ 
mony was of the most important character were in their graves, and 
yet this board of three officers assumed to find that the court-martial 
and the President of the United States, acting under the law and 
charged with the grave responsibility of giving General Porter a fair 
trial, did not do so. The witnesses, many of them coached by the ac¬ 
cused and his friends for years, had forgotten much and imagined things 
to exist that wJien their memories were fresh they would not have 
stated. Matters alleged to have existed at the time of the battle of the 
second Bull Run, and which could by no possibility have been known 
to General Porter at the time of his disobedience of his commanding 
officer’s orders, were accepted by the board as excusing him from obey¬ 
ing orders. These matters could only be shown by the reports, letters, 
and other statements of confederate officers who could not be reached 
at the trial. Porter was ignorant of such alleged facts when he dis- 


G 


obeyed General Pope’s order, and hence they could not excuse his con¬ 
duct. Fortunately the record of the proceedings of the board of inquiry 
tells us how its members understood and discharged their supposed 
duty. 

I beg your special attention now for a moment or two while I show 
you what is most extraordinary, in view of the claim that this board ls 
to be given great weight, and its proceedings regarded with peculiar 
.sanctity, so much as to vrarrant you upon its recommendation in over¬ 
turning the findings of that court-martial which was organized under 
the laws of the United States, and also in reversing the action of the 
immortal Lincoln in approving the sentence of the court. 

After the board of inquiry had time and again ruled out testimony 
that was most clearly competent as against General Porter, and time 
and again ruled in testimony that no court of any kind would have 
ever dreamed was competent. General Terry, who, I presume, had some 
of the glimmerings about him yet of a lawyer, which he was once, 
thought it was about time for him, for his future honor, at least, to state 
why the board outraged every rule of law relating to the admission ot 
testimony in the conduct of the case. And I beg now to reiid it, that 
it may be understood before we give the report of this board of inquiry 
any weight at all. Terry says, reading it—he seems to have prepared 
it; it was not a mere outgush from the man’s mind. He .says: 

In the opinion of the board there is one feature of thi.s case which should be 
kept constantly in mind and which is of great importance in determining ques¬ 
tions of evidence, which is that the application of the petitioner is made to the 
pardoning power; his application is for executive action. The board was not ap¬ 
pointed to refry the original case. There is no authority for such a proceeding. But 
its duty is after hearing all the evidence presented to it to advise the President 
what justice may require to be done. 

Then he .says: 

Now, it seems to the Iward that it should admit any evidence which it would 
be proper for the President to listen to, were he personally examining the case 
with a view to determining whether or not he should exercise his constitutional 
power of pardon. On the application for the exercise of the pardoning power, 
nothing can be more pertinent than evidence that one of the witne.sses declares 
contrary to or inconsistent with the testimony given by him at the trial. No 
authority vested with the power to pardon should refuse to listen to such evi¬ 
dence. 

Skipping along, he says : 

These facts in the opinion of the board amply justify a departure from the 
rule which requires that a cross-examination should precede the proof of incon¬ 
sistent declarations.— Senate Document 2008, pages 1054, 1055. 

General Terry had in his mind that if General Porter htid been im¬ 
prisoned they might have proved, as tending to vindicate him, his good 
conduct while a convict in a cell. He looked at it as though they 
must try him by things that took place after the conviction more than 
those before. And so they admitted testimony in that view. 

But the president of the board, nqt a good lawyer, not a lawyer at 
all, was not patient under this more careful statement of General Terry, 
and he burst out at that point te tell us how he viewed it; and let me 
read that: 

The board desire to add to that also that the military code under which we 
are acting, whether it be the common law of the military service or the articles 
of war as interpreted by uniform decisions of courts, impartially forbids any 
distinction in our action or in our minds between any testimony given by an of¬ 
ficer of the Army under oath before a court-martial and his deliberate state¬ 
ments— 

Meaning out of court— 

either in the form of official reports or other declarations. 


7 


He proceeils: 

The obligation is held universally to be the same in both cases. The penalty 
fur falsehood in military estimation is the same in both. 

Whether a man had indulged in loose talk on the streets or else¬ 
where, or had written a letter or had sworn to it before a court, this 
president of the board of inquiry thought the same solemnity should be 
attached to all alike. All the members of that board acted, in that re¬ 
hearing as they call it of that case, on that theory. And what does he 
say about accepting the evidence ? 

Therefore we did not and can not in this case recognize any difference be¬ 
tween the sworn testimony presented here of record in the trial of Fitz-John 
Porter before a court-martial and deliberate statements in reference to that im¬ 
portant case designed to affect either public interest or personal rights. We 
therefore admitted all printed published declarations of witnesses before that 
court to be considered here in that light. 

So that anything, everything was regaided as testimony; and when 
they got through they summed up and say “in the light of the evidence 
w'e find certain facts. ’ ’ 

I give this, Mr. Chairman, in order to fix particularly the a.ssumed 
nature and character of this illegal and illegally constituted board. Of 
the individual members of the board as soldiers I have nothing to say but 
the kindliest things. General Schofield as well as General Terry were 
distinguished officers; and General George W. Getty, the other mem- 
l»er of the board, less spoken of here on the floor, is the peer of either 
of them as I believe, and I think I know from long personal contact 
with him in the field. But when the board assumed a grave duty and 
acted as though it rested upon it thus lightly; when they took no lawful 
oath to try the case and were under no obligations to do anything more 
than perhaps what Generals Terry and Schofield say, as I have read— 
that is, in efiect, to find an excuse for the pardoning power—then its 
action should not be cited to control or govern this body when it under¬ 
takes to review the case. 

As an illustration, the Schofield board reached the conclusion that 
evidence—using their language—“of bad animus” on Porter’s part is 
immaterial. Such a conclusion stamps the whole proceedings with con¬ 
demnation. In all prosecutions for crime, the animus with which th€ 
act is committed is of the first importance. Certain acts of a criminal, 
character imply bad purpose and guilty knowledge. Bad intention on 
the part of the accused must in some cases be proved to enable the couri 
or jury to find guilt. If it can be shown by the words or acts of Gen- 
enil Porter prior to his alleged disobedience of orders that he was dis 
loyal to his commanding officer and had an aversion to being in his 
command and hfid a settled purpose to go with his own command away 
from him and from the scene of the impending battle, it will be easy to 
understand his delays and failures to obey positive orders or to move 
into battle when the angry roar of cannon and the rattle of musketry 
summoned him there and to duty. 

Mr. KOSECRANS. I would like the general to answer me a ques¬ 
tion. 

Mr. K El PER. Be brief. 

Mr. ROSECRANS. Does not the general know that the Army is 
full of grumblei's always, and that the people who ^mble at their 
superior officers can not justly be accused of a liability to fail their 
country because they are ill-natured about their officers? Is not that 
the experience of all? 

Mr. K El PER. My distinguished friend may know more about grum- 


8 


bling iu the Army than I do. But when I served with him and under 
him I never jumbled at him. [Applause on the Kepublican side.] 

Mr. ROSECKANS. Thank you. 

Mr. KEIFEK. I had the honor to be near the gentleman in about 
the first battle (Rich Mountain) of the war, if not with him. 

Mr. HORR. And you obeyed his orders, I suppose. 

Mr. KEIFER. General Porter reported to General Pope in person 
the morning of the 27th of August, 1862, at Warrenton Junction, hav¬ 
ing been ordered to do so at Aquia Creek on his return from Harrison’s 
Landing. At 4 p. m. of that same day he sent a dispatch to General 
Burnside using the following among other expressions, which my dis¬ 
tinguished friend from California [Mr. Rosecrans] would call grum¬ 
bling. Let us listen for a moment or two to the grumbling: 

We are working now to get belaind Bull Run, and I presume will get there iu 
a few days if strategy don’t use us up. The strategy is magnificent and tactics in 
the inverse proportion. I was informed to-day by the best authority that in op¬ 
position to General Pope’s views this army was pushed out to save the Army of 
the Potomac, an army that could take care of itself. Most of this is private, bttl 
if you can get me away do so. 

The confederate army was around him and he was telegraphing to be 
gotten away. On the same day he .sent the same officer another dis¬ 
patch, using this language: 

Please hasten back the wagons 1 sent down, and inform McClellan, that I may 
know that I am doing right. 

The significance of this will ap})ear a little further on. Again, on 
August 28, he dispatched to the same officer: 

All that talk about bagging .Tackson is bosh. That enormous gap, Manassas, 
was left open, and the enemy jumped through. The story of McDowell having 
cut off Ivongstreet had no fouiulation. The enemy destroyed an immense amount 
of pi-operty at Manassas, wagons and supplies. I expect the next thing will be 
a raid on our rear by liongstreet, who was cut off. 

Another dispatch to the same officer, by General Porter, dated Bris- 
toe, August 28, 9.30 in the morning, closes as follows: 

I hope for the best. My lucky star is always up about mj' birthday, the 31st, 
and I hope McClellan’s is up also. You will hear of us soc>n by wav of Alex¬ 
andria. 

That is, we will have retreated there in a short time. 

Mr. ROkSECRANS. Was he not pretty near right in all these things? 

Mr. KEIFER. By his conduct it became a fulfilled propheey. To 
the same officer he telegraphed again from Bristoe, at 6 in the morn¬ 
ing of August 29: 

Heintzelman and Reno are at Centreville, where they marched yesterday. 
Pope went to Centreville with the last two as a body-guard, at the" time not 
knowing where was the enemy, and whenSigel was fighting within eight miles 
of him and in sight. Comment is unnecessary. I hope Mac’s at work, and we 
will soon be ordered out of this. It would seem from proper statements of the 
enemy that he was wandering around loose, but I expect they know what they 
are doing; it is more than any one here or anywhere knows. 

The foregoing and other language like it enables us to see the then 
state of Porter’s mind, and to discern his purpose of future bad action 
so far as loyalty to his commanding,general was concerned. These 
dispatches need no critical analysis to enable us to know, first, that he 
did not want or intend to fight under Pope; second, that while he re¬ 
garded the enemy in great .strength around him, he wanted at once to 
get away and to be ordered out; third, that his disloyalty to General 
Pope was so great that he wanted General McClellan to be informed 
of it, that he might know that he was “doing right,” and that is the 
interpretation General McClellan put on it; fourth, that in advance of 


9 


ii bjittle he prophesied what by his snbsequeut action was fulfilled: 
“ You will hear of us soon by way of Alexandria.” That indicated a 
settled purpose on his part to so behave as to ultimately retreat to that 
place. 

Other significant deductions might be drawn from these dispatches. 
His dispatch from Bristoe Station, dated 6 a. m. August 29, was writ¬ 
ten while he was delaying obedience to the order to move to the battle¬ 
field at the first dawn of day that same morning. Instead of moving 
by the dawn of day of the morning of the 29th to the battlefield, where 
be had been summoned by an order dated 3 o’clock of that same morn¬ 
ing, we find him at 6 o’clock at Bristoe Station writing a dispatch to 
General Burnside, away oif somewhere, asking to be taken away from 
there. Afterward he otfers excuses about not being able to obey the 
order, although at 6 o’clock in the morning the sun was shining high 
in the hea^'ens. 

It was a matter more imj)ortant to him to write a dispatch, disloyal 
to General Pope, than to hasten with his troops to the scene of the en¬ 
gagement; and the dispatch to Burnside that Pope had gone to Centre- 
ville with two corps as a body-guard was not onlj' shamefully disre¬ 
spectful to his commanding general but it was absolutely false, for he 
had no knowledge of that kind and it never was the fact. 

After this clear insight into the motives, purpo.ses, designs, and un¬ 
military conduct of General Porter, we hardly need to expect less than 
flagrant disobedience of any important orders General Pope might issue 
to him. It is easy to believe General McDowell’s statement, made 
under oath before the court-martial, that he told General Porter, “I'oa 
2 )Ht your forces in here’’'’ (pointing in the direction of the enemy); and 
thereupon Porter (putting his hand in the direction of the dust rising 
above the tops of the trees) answered: “ IPe cannot go in there anywhere 
without yetting into a fight.'’’ Poor fellow! He was not there to tight; 
but to be heard from ‘ ‘by way of Alexandria, ’ ’ as he was shortly after. 
The reply of General McDowell to that unmanly and coAvardlj^ remark 
of General l^orter was good and soldierly: ^^That is what we came here 
for, General Porter.'” But the reply had no effect on Porter. He ad¬ 
hered persistently througliout the day to his purpose not to engage the 
enemy. 

Before dismissing the question of the animus of Porter, I wish to 
give the judgment of his best friend on his conduct during those mo¬ 
mentous daj'S, including the second Bull Pun—the friend to whom he 
appealed through his dispatches to know whether he was doing right. 
This friend may be assumed to have known him and his motives, and 
no doubt interpreted his actions better than could any other person 
living. He had his anxious eyes upon him, and not disinterestedly 
either. Promptly on learning of his bad conduct, this officer was 
alarmed, and fearing it would be repeated, he wrote him from the War 
Department at Washington a letter such as only a guilty man could 
complacently receive without regarding it as a gross assault upon his 
honor as a soldier. Here is the convincing letter : 

War DerarT-HENT, September J, 1862—5.30p. in. 

This was two days after the close of the battle in and around Manas¬ 
sas. Listen! 

I ask you, for my .sake, that of the country, and of the old Army of the Po¬ 
tomac, that you and all friends will lend the fulle.st and most cordial co-opera^ 
tion to General Pope in all the operations now going on. The distresses of our 
country, the honor of our arms, are at .stake, and all depend.s upon the cheerful 


10 


co-operation of all in the held. Thin week is the crisis of our fate. Say the same 
thing to all my friends in the Army of the Potomac, and that the last request I 
have to make of them is that for their country’s sake they will extend to Gen¬ 
eral Poi^ the same support they ever have to me. 

I am in charge of the defenses of Washington and doing all I can to render 
your retreat safe, should that become necessary. 

GEO. li. McClellan, 

Major-Oeneruf. 

Major-General Porter, 

Ceiitreville, commanding Fifth Corps. 

Listen to the opening sentence again: 

1 ask of you for my sake— 

To do what ? To do what you have not been doing—to be loyal to- 
your commanding officer, No; General McClellan would have cut his 
right arm off before he would have addressed such a note as that to 
General Rosecrans, General Sheridan, General Phil. Kearney, or tmy 
other of the host of loyal generals of this countiy who were always^ 
ready to bound to the place of duty whenever duty called. [ Axtplause. ] 
Nothing but a settled conviction on the part of General McClellan that 
Porter had been a traitor to Pope ever induced him to write that let¬ 
ter. [Applause.] 

Mr. MAGINNIS. Will the gentleman allow me one word ? 

Mr. KEIFER. If the gentleman will not draw me away from the 
line of my argument. 

Mr. MAGINNIS. Did not General McClellan write that letter at 
the request of President Lincoln, assuring President Lincoln that in 
his belief no such letter was necessary ? 

Mr. KEIFER. Then General McClellan had the concurrence of 
President Lincoln that Porter was disobeying order’s. [Applause.] I 
do not know wffiether General McClellan was requested to write that 
letter or not, but if he was, that is the answer. 

I want to go back for a moment to the report of the board of inquir;y^ 
I want to refer to one matter which will perhaps come in here as well 
as anywhere else. I suppose I am at liberty to conclusively presume 
that Porter and his friends here on this floor and elsewhere believe that 
this board of inquiry was right on this point. Let me read it:" 

Porter’s faithful, subordinate, and intelligent conduct that afternoon saved 
the Union army from the defeat which would otherwise have resulted that day 
from the enemy’s more speedy concentration. Theonly seriously critical period 
of that campaign, namely, between 11 a. m. and sunset of August 29, was thus 
safely passed. 

Now this board finds that General Porter, by his “masterly inac¬ 
tivity,” by his retiring when the enemy showed himself in his front, 
by his refusal to go into battle that day when on his right there raged 
a great battle, as w’e shall jiresently show—General Porter, it would 
seem (the board concluded) by absolutely refusing to fight at all saved 
a great disaster; that is, those already engaged succeeded better with¬ 
out him than they would with him, although he had under his com¬ 
mand on that field at that time about one-half of the regular troops then 
in the United States servit^e. 

This I give simply as a sample. The members of the board found by 
not fighting, by not going into battle at the sound of musketry and the 
cannon’s roar, he saved the army from getting whipjied. 

Mr. ROSECRANS. Was not the finding of the court that he did not 
retreat ? 

Mr. KEIFER, I will state there are some portions of the language 
of one of the specifications in reference to which they found him not 


11 


guilty. I think the particular language was not that he did not re¬ 
treat, but that he did not retreat when the enemy was pressing him. 

Mr. ROSECRANS. You read in a very loud voice the charge that 
he was retreating. Now, I wish to ask the gentleman whether it was 
not the finding of the court-martial that of that charge he was not 
guilty? Did not the court except that from its finding? 

Mr. KEIFER. No; the court found him guilty of the specification, 
but it excepted that part of the specification which related to his re¬ 
treating while the enemy w^as pressing him; he got off before they got 
near him. [Laughter,] 

It was alleged before the court of inquiry that General Fitz-John 
Porter did right in not literally obeying the order to march to the bat¬ 
tlefield, and they set forth in support of that view that there is a dis¬ 
cretion to be exercised by a subordinate officer in obeying orders. Gen¬ 
eral Grant’s letter, which makes up a large part of the brains in the 
report of the majority of the military committee, for the author of the 
report must have supposed he belonged to that same three hundred 
characterized by him the other day as know -nothings—General Grant’s 
letter, I repeat, says: is never true that a subordinate has a right to ex¬ 

ercise discretion on the subject of obeying his superior officer's order if a 
battle is raging. ’ ’ 

Now, w'e will soon see w'hether there was not a battle raging. A 
discretion is only exercised when the conditions under which the order 
was issued are changed and when the changed condition could not 
have been known to the ofiicer giving it. The discretion of an officer 
relates to means, not ends. It relates to his doing more than his order 
requires, not less. He is to interpret his order when a battle is rag¬ 
ing, to do everything within his power wi^th all his command. The 
.<«oldier’s mission is to fight. War is without affection; it means devas¬ 
tation, destruction, death. It never justifies a subordinate officer in 
so interpreting an order as not to require him to go into battle with 
his command on account of his own personal safety or that of his 
troops. 

I need not in this presence discuss the question of discretion on the 
subject of obeying an order. Almost one-half, if not quite one-half, of 
the members of this House have been officers or soldiers on one side or 
the other in the most memorable, sanguinary, and destructive qf all 
modern wars, and to either side may I confidently appeal to support 
the point I make, that it is never the duty of an officer to retreat in 
the presence of an enemy when any of his fellow-soldiers are in the 
conflict. 

The military authorities lay down the only safe and wise rule, De 
Hart, in his admirable work, has colletfted the experience and judgment 
of all the ages in the rule he lays dowm when he says; 

Hesitancy in the execution of a militao” order is clearly, under any circum¬ 
stances, a serious offense, and would subject one to a severe penalty, but actual 
disobediencje is a crime which the law has stij^matized as of the highest degree, 
and against which is denounced the severe penalty of death. 

Now, did Porter disobey orders? I will spend but a little time, for 
I have not much to spare, on this subject. It is admitted—and I have 
tried to keep on undisputed ground—it is admitted, Mr. Chairman, 
that General Porter received an order prior to 1 o’clock on the morning 
of the 28th of August, when he was at Warrenton Junction, ordering 
him to move at 1 o’clock a. m. to Bristoe Station, and which order 
commanded him to reach there by daylight. Nobody disputes that. 


12 


He was nine miles away from Bristoe Station. He called his officers about 
him and showed the order to them late at night, not 1 o’clock at night; 
but he told them there was something to sleep on, not to execute, but to 
sleep on. One o’clock came and he had not moved. It is .said that the 
head of his column moved at 3 o’clock, and he executed that great 
march of nine miles with his command, reaching Bristoe Station after 
10 o’clock next day. He could have marched it, reaching there at the 
time he did, after 7 o’clock in the morning, and not marched more than 
three miles an hour. Two and a half miles an hour is ordinary and 
easy marching, including rests, for large bodies of troops. 

I take nobody’s testimony on that question. I stand here in the 
presence of a score and more of men who know the road from War- 
renton Junction to Bristoe Station, who, as well as myself, at different 
times have marched over it by night and by day with infantry troops 
in much less than three hours. They say the road was blocked that 
night by wagons. Instead of being a narrow gorge or defile and being 
difficult to go through, it was a double road (one either side of the rail¬ 
road), and on each side for a full mile you could march a command 
with artillery anywhere you pleased on that summer night. Troops 
could better march outside of the road than in the dust in it. 

Then he disobeyed that order. But we are told it made no difference, 
because Pope was mistaken, and no battle was fought at daylight in 
the morning, and Porter for this reason was justified in disobeying it. 
Now, that is not an excuse for disobeying an order to be given by any 
officer or which should be considered for a moment. A single deserter 
from the Army might be arrested and taken back and when tried trath- 
fully say: “Why, I deserted, but before you arrested me and while 1 
was absent there was no fighting for me to do. Now, do not shoot me 
for that act, for I have done no harm in trying to escape and I am now 
here. ’ ’ 

It is .said it was too dark to march troops before the break of day on 
the morning of the 28th of August. It did not rain, and there could 
have been no extraoidinary darkness. Longstreet could easily march 
his confederate troops all night, and the brave, faithful General Ricketts, 
who found himself with his division at Thoroughfare Gap, between 
Longstreet’s and Jackson’s corps, marched all night to extricate his sol¬ 
diers and be ready in the early morning to obey his commanding gen¬ 
eral’s orders to engage in the tight. 

But it was Porter’s duty to be where his commanding general appre¬ 
hended danger. That sort of an excuse is not one that should come ever 
from anybody, let alone from a trained soldier. 

I do not stop, Mr. Chainnam to read the testimony in this connec¬ 
tion to prove that he disobeyecf the joint order to McDowell and him¬ 
self to move to the field of battle early on the morning of the 29th. 1 

do not care enough about it. I do not think that a soldier tit to com¬ 
mand a 001^)8 in the armies of the United States needs to have an express 
order to move to the battlefield when the thunder of cannon was sound¬ 
ing in his ears. [Applause. ] General Porter also excuses himself be¬ 
cause he .says (in one of his petitions, I believe) he gave a double con¬ 
struction to that order. The double construction which he gave was 
always such that he had one alternative, not to go into the tight, and 
that is the alternative he always adopted. But he was commanded by 
that order to move to the battletield, and he did move in that direction; 
but as he approached it and found the enemy (Stuart’s cavalry dragging 
brush) in sight, he did not proceed to attack or reconnoiter, but he 


13 


veered off Irom the proper held, retreated toward Mana-ssas, and settled 
himself down like a Christian gentleman, I suppose, under the eaves of 
Bethlehem church. [Laughter. ] He said he could not obey the order 
delivered to him, dated 4.30 p. m. on the afternoon of the 29th, because 
it was received too late. But on his own statement it was still not too 
late to have gone into the engagement, for he pretends to have attempted 
the execution of the order. But give him even to the hour of 6 o’clock, 
which is after the time the order was received. We find by the official 
reports of Union officers and confederate officers, from commanding gen¬ 
erals down, that they w^ere able to fight until 9 o’clock that night within 
easy hearing of the ears of General Porter. Then he had three hours in 
which he could have gone to the relief of his comrades, already at death 
grips in that bloody conflict. 1 will not stop to weigh that testimony, 
but give you another circumstance which is, to my mind, most signifi¬ 
cant. 

General Sykes, loyal to General Porter then, was willing to swear and 
did swear before the court that when the 4.30 }). m. order was deliv¬ 
ered to Porter he concealed its contents, and although he spent that 
evening and all the coming night with him he never learned that Porter 
had that order to go into battle, although he was a division commander 
and waiting to receive orders from him. Nay, he did not tell his offi¬ 
cer next in rank to him that he was ordered to move his whole corps 
into the battle. Sykes did not hear of the order until the next day. It 
is true that Porter, after receiving and concealing the order, dispatched 
Morell, whose division was in front of Sykes’s, directing him to take four 
regiments and deploj" skirmishers in there, and make an attack, looking 
out meanwhile well for his rear. And that is all that we learn of the 
attempt made by him to comply with this order. Some officer had re¬ 
ported to Morell that the enemy were advancing, and said they seemed 
to be in great force. ‘ ‘A whole brigade ’ ’ was the language used. That 
report went to Porter at almost the very moment he received the 4.30 
p. m. order to go into the battle. He thus had notice from Morell that 
there was a whole brigade advancing in his front, but he sent out four 
regiments and had them soon after withdrawn, and now his friends claim 
that he did the best he could to execute the order. 

But Porter is excused by the lioard and by others. They claim that 
if he had gone into the buttle at that time he would have encountered 
a superior force and met with a disaster. 1 do not shrink, Mr. Chair¬ 
man, from wrestling with this question also, for it is capable of com¬ 
plete and perfect demonstration that such is not the case. But what 
if it had been? Suppose it to be true. Suppose as a matter of fact 
that Porter had liOngstreet’s whole corps bel'ore him. He did not know 
it. Some of these men pretend to say that he knew more than any¬ 
body else knew in reference to the matter. But Morell, who was in 
front, did not so report ; and there is that grand, gallant soldier. Col. 
B. F. Smith, gone to his long account years ago, who says that during 
the whole of that day he was all the time on the advance line, and so 
swears in the testimony before the court-martial; that he was all day 
sending the latest news as to the presence and force of the enemy, and 
he was not able to discover a considerable force before them; and yet 
it was through Smith that Porter got his information. Porter did not 
know Longstreet was before him, if it was true that he w as there. But 
was it true that there w^as an overwhelming force in his front? 

:Mr. ROSECEANS. I wwld like to ask the gentleman a question. 

l\Ir. KEIFER. I have no objection if I have sufficient time. 




I 


14 

Mr. ROSECRANS. How far Ls it from Thoroughfare Gap to the field 
of battle ? 

Mr. KEIFER. The exact distance I can not state. 

Mr. ROSECRANS. It is about nine miles. 

Mr. KEIFER. I think that is about the distance. 

Mr. ROSECRANS. Do we not know Ricketts had left Thoroughfare 
Gap before Longstreet occupied it on the 29th ? 

Mr. KEIFER. We know Ricketts retired from it in the night, but 
we did not know Longstreet was coming to the position he took on the 
field any more than to any other. 

Mr. ROSECRANS. Had not Ricketts got out of the gap because he 
was afraid of being overwhelmed ? 

Mr. KEIFER. Yes. Ricketts was of the court-martial; and he knew 
all that country and the distances better than General Roseceans or 
myself can know them. He was seriously wounded in the first Bull 
Run, and he fought his division through the whole of the second. 

Mr. ROSECRANS. It would be a fair thing for the House to hear 
the gentleman say in his argument whether or no General Ricketts left 
that gap early in the day because he was overwhelmed? 

Mr. KEIFER. He left that gap at night because Stonewall Jack- 
son’s troops were between him and Pope’s main force. 

Mr. Roseceans rose. 

Mr.- KEIFER. The gentleman will pardon me. 1 can not be di¬ 
verted from my present line of argument unless my time is extended 
further. I want to read from the report of the confederate general, J. 
E. B. Stuart, on the subject of troops in front of Porter. Referring 
to the approach of an enemy from the direction of Bristoe Station, he 
says: 

The prolongation of his line of march would have passed through my posi¬ 
tion, which was a very fine one for artillery as w'ell as for observation, and 
struck Longstreet in flank. I waited his approach long enough to ascertain that 
there was at least an army corps— 

That was Porter’s— 

at the same time keeping detachments of cavalry dragging brush dow'u the 
road in the direction of Gainesville so as to deceive the enemy—a ruse w-hich 
General Porter’s report show's now was successful. And I notified the com¬ 
manding general, then opposite me on the turnpike, that Longstreet’s flank 
and rear was seriously threatened, &c. 

It seems Longstreet w'as there with some of his troops, but Stuart, 
commanding only cavalry, seeing a whole corps of infantry w'as coming 
on. his flank, deceived Porter by dragging brush along the Gainesville 
road and raising dust. And this dust was enough to turn this now- 
claimed-to-be great hero off with his entire corps in search of a church 
under the shadow of which he might lie in peace. 

The same thing will be found in General Lee’s letter to Porter dated 
the 31st of October, 1867. I come now to the question as to whether 
Longstreet’s whole corps w'as there; and some very singular things 
crop out. I admit there is a letter here dated in 1870, signed by General 
R. E. Lee, stating in general terms that Longstreet’s w^hole corps was up 
in the afternoon of the 29th. But before me is a letter of General Lee 
bearing date the 31st of October, 1867, in which he says, speaking of 
the troops which had come up: 

Longstreet’s whole force, except Anderson’s division, w-as up, and that arrived 
next morning. 

Then Anderson’s division, according to Lee, did not get up till next 
morning. Now, I state here upon the authoritj' of men within the sound 


15 


of my voice that freueral D. H. Hill’s division of Longstreet’s coips did 
not arrive until after the battles of Bull Run were fought and ended, 
including the 30th of August. If there is any man here who belonged 
to that division he will not deny it, and of course if D. H. Hill’s di¬ 
vision of Longstreet’s corps, as he reports, and there is abundant other 
testimony to same effect, did not reach the battle-field of Bull Run or 
Manassas, then we have got, according to General Lee’s letter as to 
Anderson’s division, the fact esffiblished that two divisions of that 
corps were not there on the 29th. 

Instead of having that corps of Longstreet’s, twenty-five thousand 
strong, there, we have two divisions away; and I willpre.sently show what 
is still worse for Porter’s case. The battle was raging, and I ^vill show 
you in a moment or two that there was a great battle raging, and the 
critical hour of the battle had come, when General Pope, discerning, as 
a great general ought to discern, that the supreme moment had come, 
sent that 4.30 order to Porter to attack at once, and Porter should have 
obeyed it, because Pope had put in all his other available troops. General 
T. J. Jackson—Stonewall Jackson—says the atfiickwas so impetuous, 
so persistent, and so overwhelming that he appealed to the command¬ 
ing general, Robert E. Lee, for assistance; and he says but for the timely 
arrival upon his rightof Longstreet’s forces the issue of the battle might 
have been different. Who came there ? Who went there ? General 
Hood’s division of Longstreet’s corps left Porter’s front and went in on 
Jackson’s right and attac^ked the troops under Pope on his left at the 
critical moment. At this juncture Porter should have certainly been 
in the fight. Not Hood’s division alone but the brigade of Evans from 
the corps of Longstreet joined Hood’s division and also went into the 
fight, and turned the battle against the Union forces, when poor, cring¬ 
ing Porter was laying off on his elbow, resting his head upon his hand, 
waiting for some excuse to move his troops farther to the rear. I see 
before me one who wears the insignia of war, an empty sleeve—Colonel 
Oates, of Alabama—and he was there under Lee, and know's w hether 
Hootl’s division and Evans’s brigade of Longstreet’s corps went in and 
decided that conflict at a critical moment. 

Now we have three divisions away from Longstreet’s 0017)8 and yet 
Porter says he could not safely attack. Wilcox’s division is left, out of 
which Evins’s brigade may have come. Of course there was cavalry 
there. Porter could not go in ; he might get whipped ! 

But he has written letters since to find what the situation and nuju- 
ber of the troops were in his front. He put the question and asked for 
a categorical answer from General Robert E. Lee to know wfliat would 
liave been his fate if he had fought, and Lee, a judicious, careful, and 
prudent soldier, said : 

The probable result of an attack on Longstreet after 12 m., with less than twelve 
thentsand men, would have been a repulse. 

‘‘The probable result.” Then we find this ofticer of our Army pro¬ 
tecting himself behind the probability that he would have been re¬ 
pulsed if he had fought, and hence he claims to have been justified in 
disobeying the orders of General Pope. Had he attacked, Lee could 
not po.ssibly have used Hood’s division and Evins’s brigade of Long¬ 
street’s corps to support .Tackson in his battle with other troops under 
General Pope. If the effect had been by Porter’s attack on I.ongstreet, 
as ordered, to have kept Hood and Evins there, then Pope w'ould have 
overwhelmed Jackson’s forces, as Jackson in his report says he appre¬ 
hended, and we would still have had a complete victory, still have had 


16 


success; and if there had been no other object on the part of General 
Pope in ordering Porter into this battle than to keep Longstreet’s forces 
employed, whatever were there, it would have been a sufficient reason 
Ibr his issuing that order. 

1 do not care to stop and read all these reports; I do not care to get into 
these questions. I have stated the main features and the main facts. 

It is said that there was no great battle raging. I do not know how 
far it is proper to use the testimony of others on this floor which I would 
like to use. There is certainly one gentleTnan [Mr. Oates] who rode to 
that battlefield after the battle was over, after the troops had marched 
off. He went back there to \uew the sad scenes of death and destruc¬ 
tion. He tells me that when he reached the scene of this conflict of the 
evening of the 29th of August, 1862, he was obliged to dismount from 
his horse and tie him, so that he might get along among the dead; that 
there were so many dead there that he could not ride without his horse 
trampling on them. 

Stonewall Jackson was not mistaken when he said that there was a 
a battle there. Speaking of the conflict of the evening of the 29th, he 
says: 

As one line was repulsed another took its place and pressed forward as if de¬ 
termined by force of numbers and fury of assault to drive us from our posi¬ 
tion. So impetuous and well sustained were these onsets as to induce me to 
send to the commanding general for re-enforcements; but the timely and gal¬ 
lant advance of General Longstreet on the right relieved my troops from the 
pressure of overwhelming numbers and gave to those brave men the chances 
of a more equal conflict. 

Jackson referred in his report to the attack of Hood’s division and 
Evans’s brigade of Longstreet’s corps. 

I am warned that my time is very brief. Longstreet and others 
speak of the great conflict that was going on that day, and that he 
had to send troops by direction of General Lee to the aid of General 
.Jackson. This is shown by the official reports of Longstreet, Hood, 
and others, including General R. E. Lee. 

General Lee, referring to the movements and battle of the 29th of 
August, in his report says: 

The cavalry guarded our right and left flanks, that on the right being under 
General Stuart in person. After the arrival of Longstreet the enemy changed 
liis position and began to couceutrate opposite Jackson’s left, opening a brisk 
artillery tire, which was responded to with effect by some of General A. P. Hill’s 
batteries. Colonel Walton placed a part of his artillery upon a commanding 
position between Generals .Jackson and Longstreet by order of the latter, and 
engaged the enem}' vigorously for several hours. Soon afterward General Stuart 
reported the approach of a large force from the direction of Bristoe Station 
threatening Longstreet’s right. The brigades under General Wilcox were sent 
to re-enfoi'ce General Jones, but no serious attack was made, and after firing a 
few’ shots the enemy w ithdrew. While this demonstration w’as being made on 
our right a large force advanced to assail the left of Jackson’s position occupied 
by the division of General A. P. Hill. The attack w’as received by his troops 
w’ith their accustomed steadiness, and the l)attle raged with gx'cat fury. The en¬ 
emy was repeatedly repulsed but again pressetl on the attack wdth fresh troops. 
Once he succeeded in penetrating an interval between General Gregg’s brigade 
on the extreme left and that of General Thomas, but was quickly driven back 
W’ith great slaughter by the Foxirteenth Soxith Carolina Regiment, then in re¬ 
serve, and the Forty-ninth Georgia of Thomas’s brigade. The contest w as close 
and obstinate; the combatants .sometimes delivered their fire at ten paces. Gen¬ 
eral Gregg, wLo w’as most exposed, w’as re-enforced by Hay.s’s brigade under 
tleneral Forixo, and successfully and gallantly resisted the attack of the enemy 
until the ammunition of his brigade being exhausted and all its field ofileers 
but two killed or w’ounded, it w’as relieved, after .several hours of .severe fighting, 
by Early’s brigade and the Eighth laxuisiana Regiment. General Early drove 
the enemy back w’ith heavy loss and pursued about tw’o hundred yards beyond 
the line of battle, when he was recalled to the position on the railroad w’here 
Thomas, Pender, and Archer had firmly held their grounds against every attack. 


17 


battle was raginj^ on Jackson’s left General Longstreet ordered Hood 
and Evans to advance, but before the order could be obeyed Hood M'as himself 
attacked and his command at once became warmly engaged. General AVilcox 
was recalled from the right and ordered to advance on Hood’s left, and one of 
Kemi)er’s brigades, under Colonel Hunton, moved forward on his right. The 
enemy was repulsed by Hood after a severe contest, and fell back closely fol¬ 
lowed by our troops. The battle continued until 9 p. m., the enemy retreating 
until he had reached a strong position, which he held with a large force. The 
darkness of the night put a stop to the engagement. 

With these official reports and other indubitable evidence it can not 
longer be contended that no battle was fought on the 29th of August. 

General Grant’s whole opinion is based on the erroneous impres¬ 
sion that the only battle fought was on the 30th of August. He says 
in his letter, “ I find that the battle was fought on the 30th of August. ’ ’ 
It is then fair to him to say that with the real facts before him he 
would have reached the opposite conclusion. 

Was Porter justified in failing to obey the order to go into the fight, 
if he had known all that General Lee knew as to the strength of the 
forces in front of him? The answer certainly must be that he was not 
justified. I do not think General Porter would have been blameless 
even if he had had no order to go into that battle. If he had known 
only what was open and known to every one there, that a great battle 
was pending, it was his duty to have marched into the conflict with his 
fellow officers and soldiers. 

I might give examples to show that although an officer might prob¬ 
ably be repulsed, that it would constitute no excuse for his refusal to 
obej" an order. The history of other wars might be referred to to prove 
this. Marshal McDonald, atWagram, moved under orders with his de¬ 
voted fifteen thousand French soldiers upon the Austrian center, when it 
was understood that the battle would turn upon the result, and he came 
out of it with only fifteen hundred men. But Napoleon won a great 
victory. He did not say to the great warrior of that day: ‘ T will prob¬ 
ably meet with a repulse, ’ ’ and then refuse to obey orders. 

In that memorable winter battle in the forest in and around Hohen- 
linden there was a general officer who had an indefinite order to move 
by night upon the Austrian flank and rear. He had no summer night 
to move his troops in; he had no plain road to move upon. He had a 
dark December night, with a dense forest about him and a driving 
storm of snow envelojjing him, and only a timber road to march upon. 
He was ordered to move to a position to strike the enemy in the rear, 
as was Porter on this occasion at Bull Run. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. KEIFER. If I can be allowed ten minutes more I will be 
through. 

Mr. BROWNE, of Indiana. I presume there will hardly be another 
speech to-night; it is now 4 o’clock. I hope the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Keifer] will be allowed to conclude. 

Mr. KEIFER. I am very nearly through. 

Mr. BROWNE, of Indiana. I am sure there will be no objection to 
extending the time on the other side when desired. We have been very 
liberal up to this time, and I hope that liberality will be continued on 
both sides. 

The CHAIRMAN. Consent is asked for the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Keifer] to proceed for ten minutes longer. 

There was no objection, and leave was granted accordingly. 

Mr. KEIFER. This officer received from Marshal Moreau an order 
Ke-2 



18 


to move to the enemy’s rear. He stnigjiied on, through darkness and 
storm, although he was out of reach of his commanding officer. 

He knew nothing of his purposes, or whether he was assailing the 
Archduke John with his then apparently victorious Austrian hosts in 
his front or flank or rear. He, however, knew a soldier’s duty was 
to obey. This officer met suddenly at St. Christoph village with a 
great obstacle. General Riesch’s corps of the Austrian army, and he 
said “ My orders are not to stop to flght here or to fight that corps, hut 
to strike in the rear of the Austrian main army in the defile behind 
Hohenlinden at Mattenboett. ” He left a single brigade behind him 
to engage the whole corps of the Austrians and pushed on through that 
driving storm, overthrowing the Hungarian horse that appeared in his^ 
front, and finally plunged among the artillery and baggage wagons ot 
the enemy and overthrew his rear guard, causing the (complete over¬ 
throw ot that great army and bringing victory again to the French 
standard. That man was Kichepanse. He was no Porter. He did 
not think that he would probably be repulsed. He had no idea of duty 
but to obey the orders of his sux)erior officers. 

Others have shown as great examples, though difiering in circum¬ 
stances. When the battle of the 14th of June, 1800, on the plains of 
Marengo, in Italy, was lost, when Napoleon, with many of his best 
generals and marshals under him, was overthrown and in full retreat, 
he looked anxiously for the coming of one who had no orders to move 
to that field, but to another. There was one of his marshals who had 
been dispatched to a distant point (Novi), away ofi' from the field of 
battle, as it turned out. But that man was a brave soldier. He had 
fought upon the sandy plains and undei' the burning sun of Egypt. 
He had but recently returned from that theater of war. When the 
first distant sound of battle came to his ear he halted his column and 
listened. He put his ear to the earth to catch the sound more clearly; 
and then without orders he reversed his whole command and moved in 
hot haste where the sound of battle summoned him. He came up at 
3 o’clock in the afternoon and found the French army in full retreat, 
beaten and overthrown. When consul ted by N apoleon as to what should 
be done in the crisis, casting his eye over the field, he said; ‘‘Yes, the 
battle is lost; but it is only 3 o’ clock. There is yet time to gain another. ’ ’ 
[Applause.] He had not waited for orders, and he now put himself at 
the head of his devoted six thousand. General Porter had twelve 
thousand men, according to his own admission and as others say; over 
thirteen thousand as shown by the reports. But there was Marshal 
Desaix at the head of his six thousand moving into battle against an 
army flushed with victory. At 5 o’clock the battle was won; the sun 
again shone upon the victorious eagles of France [ax)plause]; a vic¬ 
tory that produced a vast influence on the destinies of France and the 
whole world. It gave peace to then republican France, and, a little 
later, an emperor’s crown to Bonaparte. But the great marshal who 
moved to the sound of the music of battle, who took his orders from 
the booming echoes of the cannon, was dead ! It might ha\ e been bet¬ 
ter for others in history if they had imitated his example and met the 
same fate. [Applause. ] 

What was the example of the heroic confederate General Picket 
when he went with his devoted tlivision into that charge at Gettys¬ 
burg ? Though unfortunate as to success it proved the heroism and 
devotedness of the general who commanded and the troops under him. 
I might give other illustrations; and they are abundant. Other (-onn- 


19 


tries have believed, as our Government did in this case, in having 
orders obeyed. It has been stated liere that the British Government 
shot Admiral Byng for disobedience of orders; and since that time 
there have been few in the English navy to disobey the orders of a 
pperior officer. Another memorable case occurred about a century ago 
in the English navy. Captain Sutton, who was commanding a vessel 
in the Mediterranean, failed, as was claimed, to obey an order to cut 
cables and pursue on the high sea a retreating enemy. lie was arrested 
and put in prison, where he was confined two years and seven months 
before trial. I do not believe the delay in trying him was right. But 
he brought suit to recover damages for false imprisonment; and I de¬ 
sire to read a single paragraph from a report of the final hearing of the 
case, giving the well-stated opinion of Lords Mansfield and Lough¬ 
borough as to what the duty of an English officer is. Certainly"an 
American officer ought to stand upon the same plane. The court in 
that case said: 

A subordinate officer must not judge of the danger, propriety, expediency, or 
consequences of the order he receives; he must obey; nothing can excuse him 
but a physical impossibility. A forlorn hope is devoted—many gallant officers 
have been devoted. Fleets have been saved and victories obtained by ordering 
particular ships upon desperate services, with almost a certainty of death or 
cai>ture. (Sutton rs. Johnston, 1 Durnford & East, 546.) 

And for all we know, it might have been the opinion of General Pope,, 
rightfully assumed from a soldierly standpoint, that in order to secure 
victory to the Army as a whole he should put Porter’s forces into the 
conflict even though they were all devoted to death and destruction. 

It is pretended by some that it was impossible for Porter, who had 
fought gallantly on other fields, to have been untrue to his country. 
Other brave men—a few only, thank God !—have deserted under like 
circumstances, duty and country. 

Even after Benedict Arnold had formed the purpo.se to desert to the 
English in our Revolution he fought, as he had before, bravely for his 
country. 

Moreau, who reached the high rank, by his v^alor, of a marshal of 
France, and who commanded the French at Hohenlinden, died at Dres¬ 
den fighting with the combined despots of Europe against France. 

Now a word as to the bill. It proposes to relieve Fitz-John Porter 
from the odium of a crime which he justly wears, b}'^ authorizing him 
to be appointed by the President to the position he held ‘ ‘ in the Army 
of the United States of the same grade and rank, together with all the 
rights, titles, and privileges held by him at the time of his dismi.ssal 
from the Army; and in his (the President’s) discretion to place him on 
the retired-list of the Army as of that grade.” The President has 
already, as an act of pardon in the exercise of his clemency, relieved 
him from the disability to hold office as fixed in the sentence. 

Pardon, which implies guilt and con\fiction, may often be properly 
exercised where repentance and contrition have come and future good 
conduct may be fairly implied. I do not believe we can, in our legis¬ 
lative capacity, reverse any part of the sentence of the court that found 
Porter guilty. Only the President under the Constitution of the United 
States can grant pardons after sentehces for crimes against United States 
law. In so fiir as the sentence is executed it must stand forever. 

We may authorize Porter’s reappointment to the Army and give him 
pay out of the United States Treasury, but we can not wipe out his 
heinous guilt. The blood of the needlessly slain will forever cry out 


20 


against him from the ground, and he will be branded with the guilty 
mark of Cain forever. 

Some excuse him because they think he was not disloyal to his coun¬ 
try, but only to General Pope. There is no distinction. He could not 
betray his commanding officer without betraying his country. Others 
say he should be rehabilitated with the right again to hold office with the 
thousands and tens of thousands of others who once fought against the 
Union and who are now clothed with full citizenship under the Con¬ 
stitution. There is a marked distinction between him and them. He 
then assumed loyalty to his country on the field of battle; they did 
not. He was duly convicted upon lawful trial; they were not. They 
petitioned for legislative pardon, he for legislative vindicjition. Such 
a plea would throw wide open the prison doors all over the land. 

Our country has been the most magnanimous of any known in the 
world’s annals toward those who have openly offended against its flag. 
But it is not, I hope, ready to honor, glorify, and compensate him who 
failed to do his duty in the supreme hour of battle. 

It is said this is a political question. I hope not; though it seems 
nearly so from indications. The friends of General Porter openly boast 
of a vindication he is to have at the hands of those who were lately in re¬ 
bellion. Do they understand military j ustice better than those who 
were on the side of the Union? I do not wish to believe the brave men 
on the other side of this Chamber have more regard for a man who dis¬ 
obeyed the orders of his superior officer on the battlefield than those on 
this. We shall soon know. 

The gentleman from New York [Mr. Slocum], in charge of this bill 
has, in advance of any favorable action by this House, made it impos¬ 
sible for there to be any semblance of Aundication, by the use of the 
language folloAving: 

There was never such an aijsurdity perpetrated in any representative body 
as has been enacted here; for three hundred gentlemen, knowing nothing about 
military mattei’s, to sit here and gravely discuss subjects about which they know noth¬ 
ing whatever and never can know. 

If his opinion of the mental measure of his colleagues is right, then 
the decision about to be made can command no respect now or here¬ 
after, andthe judgment of the court which tried himAAullbe and should 
be forever looked to by the present and future generations as a just and 
righteous one. [Loud applause.] 


J 


Cliarges against Boynton and Shan 


K B M A K K S 

OF 

HON. J. WAKRBN KEIFEE, 

In the House of Representatives, 


Tuesday, January 29, 1884. 


The House having- under consideration the following resolutions; 

Whereas Hon. J. Warren Keifer, a member of this House, has charged H. 
V. Boynton, the Washington correspondent of the Cincinnati Commercial-Ga¬ 
zette, now holding a seat in the press gallery under the rules of the House, 
with having approached the Speaker of the House during the closing days of 
the last session of Congress with corrupt propo.sitions intended to influence 
his ofticial action; and 

Whereas this alleged act is in the nature of a gross breach of the privileges of 
the House, and the charge, if sustained, would call for the exclusion of said H. 
V. Boynton from the press gallery: Therefore, 

Be it resolved, That a special committee of five members of this House be ap¬ 
pointed by the Speaker, with power to send for persons and papers and admin¬ 
ister oaths, to inve.stigate the said charge of attempted corruption, and to report 
the results of this investigation to the House. 

Mr. KEIFER said; 

Mr. Speaker: I am at liberty at least to infer, from what I have 
heard and what I know, that this resolution is offered in consequence 
of a statement that I made in reference to one H. V. Boynton; and if 
the House will indulge me, in order that they may vote intelligently 
upon this resolution, I will send to the Clerk’s desk to have read the 
statement that I made to Mr. Boynton in a letter in response to a scur¬ 
rilous letter of his. After that I desire to make a further suggestion 
or two. 

The Clerk read as follows; 

House of Representatives, United States, 

Washington, D. C,, January 28, 1884—9 a. m. 

H. V. Boynton: 

About 12 o’clock last night some person handed me at my rooms an envelope 
which seemed to be addre.ssed in your handwriting, and which contained a 
printed card of yours on the subject of your guilt in the matter of a scheme to 
pass a bill through the last Congress. This morning I found a letter of yours on 
my table (where it had been left in my absence), marked “ personal,” dated the 
26th instant, asking an investigation of your practices by the House, and threat¬ 
ening to publish the letter unless by to-day’s session I moved an investigation. 
Your conduct has placed you so far outside of the pale of a gentleman as to make 
it a degradation to notice you. You hav^e been so often shown to be a liar and 
defamer of character that it has become unnecessary to deny anything you may 
say. And you conceive it to be the business of the Congress to occupy its time 
in investigating your bad deeds—to thus dignify you. 

You colleague (W. B. Shaw) in defaming me, and who presided last spring 




over a meeting of a few members of the press to condemn me, was many years 
ago shown (and he was compelled to admit the fact, as appears by public records) 
to have taken $15,000 as a lobbyist while a correspondent, and so far as I know he 
has had the privilege of the press gallery ever since. That meeting refused to 
investigate the truth of the charges against me at your and his instance, when 
they must have been known to both to be false. 

Do you think the present House should investigate each case of your violation 
of all manliness by daily lying about me in the press and otherwise, and appeal¬ 
ing to others to do the same, as I am informed ? Does not such conduct on your 
part forfeit all right you may have to sit with gentlemen of the press ? 

I shall not move the investigation you seek, because I do not believe it is the 
business of the House of Representatives to investigate your corrupt conduct. 
There is no rule of the House against your being a lobbyist. , 

The members of the last House know you lied in your publication that I 
opened the press gallery for the admission of members’ wives the closing night 
of last session. 

All the present House know you lied when you published that when seats 
were about to be drawn I went in haste to Mr. Cannon, of Illinois, and asked 
him to request the privilege of my being allowed to select one, &c., to which 
objection was made. These and other like matters need no investigation by the 
House to learn their falsity. 

I know you forged a letter last summer and published it to the country, pur¬ 
porting to have been written by me to the Secretary of the Treasury, giving a 
date, and this about a matter of no great importance, but, as I was informed at 
the time, merely to injure me. 

Your printed card has been rightly interpreted by the public as an advance 
confession of your guilt as a lobbyist. 

If w'hen you told me, near the close of the last Congress, I was a fool for not 
making money while Speaker as Blaine and Colfax had done, and that there 
was still plenty to be made if the McGarrahan bill could be gotten through, I 
had thrown you, as you deserved, from my room, I suppose it would have been 
wiser for me. But up to that time you and I had been on good terms, although 
I had been warned by friends and your public reputation to beware of you. I 
treated you leniently, though I have never spoken to or recognized you since. 
You have from that time to this devoted your work, by all manner of falsehoods, 
to assailing my character. 

You did not say who with you were interested in the McGarrahan bill, but 
intimated that you had colleagues. My knowledge of the lobby clique was from 
you. I have had no desire tq condemn the correspondents, for I think most of 
them are gentlemen, but all have suffered in public esteem from your bad ex¬ 
ample, and some of them have been influenced by you to do what they say they 
are heartily ashamed of. A correspondent of a newspaper should regard his 
position as one of high re.sponsibilily, and in all things he should at least be 
truthful. 

I do not pretend to say McGarrahan had no merit in his original land claim, 
but when you explained to me that the bill you desired to have my assistance 
to get through Congre.ss provided for the issue of many millions of acres of land- 
scrip which would be of about the value of the Valentine scrip—woi-th then 
about $30 per acre, and since more—and that there would be abundance to di¬ 
vide, I for the first time learned the scope of the bill, and at once told you it 
would not pass the Forty-seventh Congrtss. 

I hav'e a letter from you, dated February 27, 1883, asking me to recognize a 
member named to move to suspend the rules and pass the bill, which is of a datt> 
earlier than our talk. 

No person has ever spoken to me in opposition to'tlie McGarrahan bill, and 
my position against it was taken, as you know, at the time you explained its 
nature and purposes. I leave it for the public to decide whether the lobby who 
work for big jobs at the expiration of a Congress do it for pay or sentiment. 

The committee investigation you speak of has given you more concern than 
it has me. but it has afforded you another excuse or opportunity to write and 
have published more untruths, pretending they are the result of the testimony 
disclosed before the committee. 

I dislike the idea of noticing your letter at all, but as you propose to publish 
it it may be due to the public that some of the facts should go out along with it. 

Of coui’se you would not publish yours without publishing this with it. 

J. WARREN KEIFER. 

A Member. What is the date of that letter? 

The Clerk. .Taniiary 28, 1884. 

Mr. KEIFER. On a day earlier than the date of that lettfer—for it 
is dated on yesterday—I was present with some members when I stated, 
as I believed then and I feel I kfiow now, what was the reason why 


3 


certain gentlemen of the press had pursued me for mmiy months; and 
I h^ perhaps used an unfortunate expression when I said there was a 
“clique” of them. It may be true and it may not. It seems to have 
been reported to General Boynton that I had used that expression, and 
with a guilty knowledge, and with a hope that he could go before the 
public in advance in some way, he at once rushed into the papers and 
commenced denying he was guilty of any connection with the McGarra- 
han claim in the last Congress. No person, so far as I know, had men¬ 
tioned it here; certainly I had not up to that time; that is, up to the 
time of the printed card that is referred to in that letter. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, this man Boynton appeared to be a friend of mine 
until about the 1st day of March last, ivhen he came to me with this 
bill [holding up the bill] in his hand; this identical bill. It was a bill 
reported to that Congress; and it must be borne in mind that on the 
27th day of February he had written me a letter asking me to recog¬ 
nize a member of the House to move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill, saying that he believed it was right and putting in the usual dis¬ 
claimer, that he had no interest in it. Perhaps ttiat letter had better 
be read. I have it here, and send it to the desk. The letter is in the 
handwriting of General Boynton. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

February 27. 


Dear General : McGarrahan—you have doubtless heard of him—appeals to 
me to ask you to give Mr. Dimnell a chance to ask a vote on his (McG.’s) bill. 

It has been reported favorably from committee. 

To have a vote seems fair enough when one side is a great monopoly, and the 
bill seems to be a fair one to both sides. I have no interest of the remotest kind 
in this matter, but have always thought McG. the victim of a rich corporation, 
and so he has always had my sympathy. 

Truly yours, 


H. V. BOYNTON. 


The Speaker. 


Mr. KEIFER. I am not sure whether I answered that letter. My 
recollection is that I did not, either in writing or verbally. But I am 
sure the next day or the day after Boynton came into my room when 
others were there, and after waiting and indicating he wanted to talk 
with me alone when the room was cleared, he commenced a conversa¬ 
tion something like this—I am not going to repeat it all: 

He said: “ Keifek, what do you think I think of you? ” or some¬ 
thing of that kind. I said, “I do not know; I hope, well.” Here- 
plied, “ I think you are a fool.” [Laughter.] I said that I did not 
know what he meant. [Continued laughter. ] In answer to that he 
said that I had been Speaker of the House of Representatives, that my 
term was about to expire, and I might have made money as Speaker 
Blaine and Speaker Colfax had done. 

He then proceeded to say, with this bill in his hand, that there was 
plenty to be made yet, if we could get this McGarrahan bill through. 
Up to that time I had never seen the bill that I recollect of, and knew 
nothing of its terms. He then proceeded to explain to me its terms and 
purposes. 

He said that it confirmed to Mr. McGarrahan the unsold part of the 
land claimed by him, all that part that had not been conveyed away 
to innocent purchasers; and then it provided for the issue of land-scrip 
in lieu of that portion of the land grant that had gone into the hands 
of innocent purchasers and could not be reclaimed. 

He then explained to me that the bill in a very covert way provided 
for an appraisement of the present value of all these lands, also for the 


t 




4 


ascertainment of the value of all the products of the mines that had 
been taken out bythe Newldria Mining Company; and that when that 
was aggregated the amount was to be divided by, I think he said, $1.25; 
possibly he said $2.50. The bill is a little indefinite upon that point, 
and speaks of the Government price for land. My recollection, how¬ 
ever, is that he said $1.25. The aggregate sum was to be divided by 
that amount, and that was to be the measure of the fui-ther land-scrip 
to be issued. 

He said that it would amount to some million of acres, and also that 
that kind of land-scrip was of great value, and cited to me the fact that 
Valentine land-scrip was then selling in the market for $30 an acre. 
I believe it has been quoted since then up to $60 an acre. And he 
c-iilled my attention to the fact that a vast amount of money itould be 
made out of it. 

Some gentlemen seem to be surprised that the Valentine laud-scrip 
should be so valuable, but it is used to take up unsurveyed and sur¬ 
veyed lands. I believe it is used commonly to take up water rights, 
where they want to control the surrounding country, and it is thus 
made very valuable. It has also been used by certain of our railroads 
in the Northwest to enable them to go in advance of surveyed lands, or 
where the lands have already been surveyed, and take up town-sites 
along the line of the road. They have thus been willing to pay almost 
any price for it. That is the reason why it was run up during the last 
season, I am told, to $60 an acre. 

I have seen an estimate of the amount involved in the McGarrahan 
bill; I did not get it from Mr. Boynton. The estimate summed up 
about like this: The amount of this claim sold or otherwise disposed of 
by the United States was 13,160 acres. The present value and the past 
product of the mines is estimated at $15,500,000; say $10,000,000. 
Divide that amount by $1.25 and that will give 8,000,000 acres for 
which scrip was to be issued. The total aggregate of scrip to be issued 
was 8,013,600 acres by this calculation. The value of the scrip per 
acre, taking the value of the Valentine scrip at that time, $30 an acre, 
would make the sum $240,394,800 if the scrip should keep up to that 
price. Making a deduction from the present value of the Valentine 
scrip, allowing for the fall in price on account of the glut in the mar¬ 
ket, throwing off two-thirds of that amount, would bring it down to 
the small sum of $80,131,600 as the amount which would result from 
the issue of that scrip. 

I have given this that members may understand what was perhaps 
the scope of the bill. This statement was not made to me by Mr. 
Boynton. He used the word “millions” in his statement; said there 
were ‘ ‘ millions in it and millions to divide. ’ ’ 

When that interview closed, which was just then and there, and he 
left my room for good reasons, my connection and relations with Boyn¬ 
ton ceased, and from that hour to the present moment I have never rec¬ 
ognized nor spoken to him. But he has devoted his life to going to 
other men, to other people, and telling falsehoods and having them 
published all over this country. He has undertaken to defame me in 
every conceivable way. 

On the last night of the last session of Congress Mr. Boynton and one 
W. B. Shaw, as I am informed, said that they had found an opportunity 
to defame me before the country and to make it appear that I was op¬ 
posed to the combined press and correspondents of the country. They 



o 


held a meeting and passed a resolution condemning me for opening the 
reporters’^ gallery for the admission of visitors to the Capitol. 

Now, I want to say here, in the presence of at least a hundred men 
who know, that that statement was false, that I was probably the only 
person belonging to that House of Representatives who was opposed to 
that proposition, and the only person belonging to that House who 
could not have defeated it. There was no great harm done by it; I 
blame no one for it. I was appealed to by General McKenzie, of Ken¬ 
tucky, on behalf of some members’ wives, to direct that the reporters’ 
gallery be oj)ened to them, which I had the power to do. I declined to 
do it; repeatedly declined. All I did was to submit to the House the 
proposition, as the Record will show, for unanimous consent to open 
the reporters’ galleries to the families of members. I submitted that 
proposition to the House and no member of the House objected. Hence 
it was by the unanimous order of that House of Representatives that 
the reporters’ gallery was opened to the families of members. And this 
man Boynton and others that followed him have caused to be published 
over the United States more slander's upon me in consequence of that 
than could possibly have been imagined about any great crime I might 
have committed. 

Now, if there is anybody here who was present on the occasion re¬ 
ferred to, and who thinks my statement is not correct, he can certainly 
stand up here and correct it. I appeal to Democrats and Republicans 
on that. [iV pause.] Then as a scurrilous, mean, low-lived method 
of attacking me at this session—I only give it as an instance—when 
we were drawing seats here for this Congress, I was in that part of the 
Hall. [Pointing.] Somebody asked permission that the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kelley] be allowed to select his seat in 
advance of the drawing, and a similar request was made for the gen¬ 
tleman from New York [Mr. Cox] and the gentleman from Pennsyl¬ 
vania [Mr. Randall]. What took place, I believe, was that the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Browne] said, ‘ ‘ If this is to go on I will 
ask permission for General Kl^i'ER to select a seat also;” and in the 
course of that talk the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mills] objected 
to all those requests. 

But Mr. Boynton published—and I am told he went from one corre¬ 
spondent to another and appealed to them to send out and publish to 
the country—that when this was going on I went to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Cannon] and'begged him to ask permission for me, 
and that when he did ask it it was declined. Now, that was put out 
simply as a means of debasing me before the country, as he called it. 

But I am not going to enter into this subject. If it is thought wise 
to go into it on the part of the House, let this resolution be thrown wider 
open. It appears by a statement in that letter, Mr. Speaker, that one 
of the distinguished gentlemen belonging to the press, who has had for 
many years the privilege of that gallery without objection, took $15,000 
as a loblwist. That is the man, I want to say, who was selected as 
the great newspaper chieftain to praside over the body to pass reso¬ 
lutions to defame me. 

Now, I will read but a little to show that this statement is true; and I 
hope the resolution will be opened wide enough to include W. B. Shaw. 

Charles Abert was testifying under order of the House before a com¬ 
mittee; and, after he had taken the opinion of Reverdy Johnson as to 
whether he should be required to answer a question, decided finally to 
answer; and when he was asked to give the names of the persons he 


G 


had paid money to here in the interest of a lobby for the Pacific Mail 
Steamship subsidy, he said: 

In view of this opinion, and also in view of the order of the House, and also 
of my own conviction of duty, I feel bound to answer. According to the best of 
my knowledge and recollection, the first payment which Mr, Irwin directed me- 
to make was— 

He then gives a list of persons, among whom this gentleman does not 
appear. He continues: 

Of the amount placed in my hands by Mr. Irwin on the 27th of May, $125,000,. 
already in testimony, I paid May 28— 

And among others who are named, with the amounts they received, 
is W, B. Shaw, $15,000. Further investigation of this testimony will 
show that Mr. Shaw got this money under various pretenses. I think 
one of them was that he claimed he was buying votes for this subsidy, 
and therefore wanted a large amount. 

ButI turn youtothetestimony of William B. Shaw himself. My friend 
from Iowa [Mr. Kasson] knows something about this, for I see that he 
was a member of the committee and put a good many of these questionsr 
Hy the chairman: 

Q. Please give the coinmittee your residence and occupation. 

A. My residence is Washington, D. C. I am a newspaper correspondent. 

Q. How long have you been in that employment? 

A. About twenty-three or twenty-four years. 

Q,. Do you know Mr. Charles Abert? 

A. I do very well. 

Q. Did you see Mr. Abert at any time during the first session of the Forty- 
second Congress? 

A. I saw him frequently. 

0,. Did he pay you any money ? 

A. He did, sir. 

0,. When? 

A, I can not tell the exact time. It was in the room occupied by Mr, Irwin,, 
on I street. 

Q,. After the pa.ssage of the subsidy bill ? 

A. Yes, .sir. 

Q. How much money did he pay you ? 

A. I think it was $15,000. 

Q. On w’hat account ? 

A. Well, for my services, and so forth. 

[Laughter. ] 

I am reading from a report of a committee of this House. I do not- 
want to weary the House, but further on in his testimony Mr, Shaw is 
jisked: 

0,. I want to know what your services were ? ^ 

A. Just what I told you. 

Q,. Getting information ? 

A. Getting information, posting them, and letting them know everything 
about the matter. 

Q. Is it a common thing with gentlemen of your profession to sell their in¬ 
formation in that way ? 

A. I do not know that it is. I have been in the habit of doing it for ten or 
twelve years. 

I think this resolution had better be framed so as to include him and 
others that there may be. If it is the theory that men who have once, 
in any prior Congress, been guilty of these things shall be regarded as 
tainted, so that they should never sit with the other gentlemen of their 
profession who are pure, let this man be included also. 

Mr. BUDD. Did you not admit him into the gallery up there? • 

Mr. KEIFER. What is the question ? 

Mr. BUDD. As Speaker of the House, did you not admit a gentle¬ 
man to the gallery that you now claim was a bribed lobbyist ? 

Mr. KEIFER. Mr. Speaker, I am obliged to the gentleman for the 


4 


<j[uestion. It gives me the opportunity to say that I never knew of this 
matter until since the adjournment of the last Congress. If I admitted 
this correspondent ignorantly, my immediate predecessor and others 
did the same. If there is to be any censure lor this act, the present 
Speaker ought to be included, though I do not suppose he knew any¬ 
thing about it. 

Mr. BUDD. You say you did not know Mr. Shaw was a bribed lob¬ 
byist, and yet you have stated here that Colonel Boynton w'as your friend 
up to about the 1st day of March? 

Mr. KEIFER. Yes. 

Mr. BUDD. Of last year? 

Mr. KEIFER. Yes. 

Mr. BUDD. He appeared at your room and attempted to bribe you. 
Now, did you not, after he had attempted to bribe you, permit him to 
occupy a seat in the press gallery? 

Mr. KEIFER. Congress adjourned two days after that. 

Mr. BUDD. During those two days, did you not allow him to come 
into your room and see you? [Cries on the Republican side, “Oh!”] 

The SPEAKER. The House will come to order. 

Mr. KEIFER. Mr. Speaker, I intended to read only a paragraph or 
two more from the same man’s testimony. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will suspend until there is order 
on the floor of the House. 

Mr. KEIFER. I will read a further paragraph or tw'o from the tes¬ 
timony of Mr. Shaw: 

• Q. Did you take the list of yeas and nays on the vote when the subsidy first 

failed in the House ? 

A. I did not; 1 was too much demoralized. [Laughter.] 

Q. Did you notice any ehange in the votes of members between the time when 
it failed and the time when it passed? 

A. No, sir; I never took any notice of it that I remember. 

Q. Did you report to your principals after its defeat in the House and its pas¬ 
sage in the Senate that it would be likely to go through the House? 

A. No, sir; if I had known that fact 1 would have made more money out of 
it. I would have loaded up at that time. [Laughter.] 

Now, Mr. Speaker, if it be the business of this House to investigate 
all these things, I trust it will give to the committee a wide range, so it 
can call in all these persons. I want to say now that there is no per¬ 
son here or elsewhere who has a higher regard and respect for a well- 
conducted press than I have. It ought to give the sentiment to the 
whole country. It ought to lead public opinion, and would, Mr. Speaker, 
if the public did not know there was so much of this sort of thing that 
is called venom, envy, jealousy, vice, malice connected with it. For 
the reavson I would not lend myself to Mr. Boynton and such as may 
have been connected with him to help him and them to get through a 
bill that was to make them all rich, for that is his own expression, I 
am traduced throughout this land. • And they have the power to in¬ 
duce others to carry on a newspaper warfare against me. That has 
seemed to be exceedingly singular. I do not know in public estima¬ 
tion I have suftered by it. Perhaps I have. I do know in my own 
estimation I have not, and I have been willing to stand up and refuse 
to buy anybody’s support or anybody’s newspaper support anywhere. 
[Applause on the Republican side. ] 

I have no blame to attach to the mass of correspondents in Washing¬ 
ton. I know they have done things time and again that were not right 
by men going to them and pouring vile falsehoods into their ears and 
having them published. I understand that all perfectly well. 


8 


I do not claim I have been free from just criticism in things I have 
done in my official life. I am quite willing and have no objection to 
submit to that sort of criticism. Every public man ought to be sub¬ 
jected to it, because it will make him a better man if the criticism is 
just. 

I might go on here and detail the things they dwell on most are the 
things I have had nothing to do with. And perhaps I have said all I 
need to on this case at this time. If it be the right thing now to go 
forward with this investigation, I certainly should not vote against it. 

I think your committee should allow the door to be thrown wide open. 

If you are going to constitute a committee here for the purpose of look¬ 
ing into the immoral conduct of these people in the past, then let it be 
wide open so you will not only investigate Mr. Boynton but others 
equally guilty with him. 

I am Sony for him; I have been; I was sorry for any man who would 
be so low-lived and corrupt as to come to me presuming he might with 
.safety make a vile, corrupt proposition to me. 

I hold myself responsible, Mr. Speaker, to my constituents. That 
is enough. When they are through with me I will go home, not 
soured with the world, for I have been treated well and beyond the 
measure of my deserts. I am not one of those who have fallen into 
the idea that we are living in a more corrupt period than those who 
have preceded us. I think we are better to-day, better in this country, 
notwithstanding these abnormal things, than we have ever been before. 

I am not soured against the public because a few of the millions of the 
American people make it their life work to attempt to defame me. , 

I am proud of my people and am willing to go on to the end and try to 
do my duty to them; and you may investigate just as much as you 
please into this or any other matter, I am still going, while I hold a < 

seat in this House, to try to do my duty unswerved by those who would 
have me do corrupt things and unswerved by those who would seek to 
have me pay them for idle compliments. 


o 




SOME REASONS FOR THE ABOEITION OF 
THE INTERNAL-TAX SYSTEM. 

I 

SPEECH 

OF 

HON. WM. D. KELLEY, 

OF 

IN THE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

MARCH 25, 1884. 


WASHINGTON. 

1884. 




J 




' T . 



^ * 






f 




f 


* 








« • 


«I 


♦ 


I 


‘T- 



.. • ♦ 
f 


/ S 


1 -4 



t 


4 . 

f 


t 



• f 



e 


I 





SPEECH 


OF 

HON. WILLIAM D. KELLEY, 


The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union*, and 
having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5265) to extend the time for the pay 
ment of the tax on distilled spirits now in warehouse— 

Mr. KELLEY said: 

Mr.XHAiRMAN: It seems to me a long time since I last addressed 
the House in current debate. How well I may, in my enfeebled con¬ 
dition, be able to sustain my train of thought and make myself heard 
I can not say. I have, however, a few deliberate and earnest convic¬ 
tions on the subject under consideration to which I hope to he able to 
give expression. Should my strength fail before I have said what I 
wish to say, I now ask for the privilege of filling up the reporter’s skel¬ 
eton at my leisure. 

I think the demand of the table whisky syndicate for temporary re¬ 
lief from taxation, so that the public shall believe they are paying 90 
cents a gallon tax to the Government, with interest, while they will be 
doing nothing else than paying per cent, interest on accruing taxes 
is rather an impudent one. 

The internal taxes on spirits, malt liquors, and tobacco in its several 
forms, are maintained at great cost to the laboring people, the small 
farmers, the men of small capital, who working their own little farms 
or their own smaller orchards or who with their skill as cigar-makers 
should receive, as they did before these taxes were imposed, the wages 
which are now divided between them and the privileged capitalists who 
are licensed to employ them. And, sir, I affirm that these oppressive 
taxes are maintained for the benefit alone of three small syndicates, 
who under the influence of the laws enacted to secure their collection 


_///4 



4 


have acquired the monopoly of the American market for their respect¬ 
ive productions. 

Of those three branches of industry the manufacture and maturing of 
table whiskies is the chief; and those engaged in this pursuit constitute 
the chief of the syndicates who find in these taxes a sure guarantee of 
their monopoly of our home markets. The large manufacturers of to¬ 
bacco, comparatively few in number, but who have crowded out the 
cigar-makers to whom I alluded and other small manufacturers, appear as 
the second syndicate with a protected monopoly. During the last Con¬ 
gress it was my privilege to promote the passage of a bill which, though 
it did not overthrow this monopoly, reduced the syndicate’s guaranteed 

perquisites by one-half. By the operation of that bill they were, after a 

% 

twenty years’ struggle, compelled to allow the American farmer who 
raises tobaeco to sell one hundred pounds of the yield of his fields and his 
labor to a purchaser other than one licensed by the Government to 
deal in leaf-tobacco. The other of these privileged syndicates is that 
of the manufacturers of malt liquors. For the benefit of these three 
syndicates we maintain these taxes, and in defense of their privileges 
we harry wide sections of our country. The service requires an army 
of over 4,000 men, whose principal employment is, as I shall abundantly 
prove, the persecution of small farmers and fruit-growers of the South. 
The direct annual expenditure required to maintain this army is over 
$5,000,000, and the indirect expenditure is said, and I believe truly, to 
amount to largely more than two and a half millions in addition. 
These are but some items of the cost of maintaining a system of taxa¬ 
tion in support of private monopolies which Thomas Jefferson de¬ 
nounced as an infernal system that should never have been admitted 
into the Constitution. 

But, Mr. Chairman, it may be asserted that we maintain these taxes 
for the benefit of the Government. I deny the proposition against all 
comers. The Government does not need any of the money derived 
from these oppressive exactions. The eloquent gentleman from New 
York, who has just taken his seat [Mr. Potter], has told us that if 
we do not arrest their collection they will derange our whole commer¬ 
cial system and overthrow the national banking system, which I pro¬ 
nounce to be the best system of corporate banking the world has ever seen. 


I had intended to dwell at some length on this point, but the gentle¬ 
man made it so clear that I prefer to quote his words, as follows: 

Now, sir, is there anything in the condition of the country which prevents our 
granting this extension ? If there is anything so that we can not give the relief 
which is requested in this particular instance, and give it in justice to the whole 
country, or if the giving of it will embarrass the country, if it will embarrass the 
Treasury, if it will embarrass or hamper any of the operations of the Govern¬ 
ment, then if those facts are ascertained or established there may be reason why 
we should hesitate. But, sir, the reasons are all the other way. 

The condition of the Treasury is such that we are embarrassed absolutely with 
the amount of money now on our hands which is needed in the avocations, 
the activities, and the industries of life. We can grant this extension not only 
without inconvenience to the country, but to the greatest convenience and ad¬ 
vantage of the country in a financial point of view. And here I wish to say, 
sir, a word in this connection. I want to call the attention of this committee to 
the fact that if this money is demanded from these people, if we insist upon the 
payment of this tax, and require that this money shall go into the Treasury at 
this time, we have no possible way left in which we can dispose of it except to 
apply it to the payment of the national debt and to that portion of it that is now 
due. We have no other use for it. The Treasury can do nothing else with it 
under the law except to apply it to the liquidation of that portion of the national 
debt which is now due and payable. And what is that debt and what is the 
condition of it? 

On the 19th day of this month the amount of bonds of this Government now 
due and payable reached the sum of $266,024,750. Of this amount of bonds con¬ 
siderably more than two-thirds, to wit, $184,302,350, are the basis of the national 
banking system of the country and the security for their circulation. They rep¬ 
resent the very foundation and the stability of the business of this country. If 
this money is received from the tax on distilled spirits it mu.st inevitably be paid 
out and undermine and destroy to a certain extent the national banking system 
upon which rests, more than upon any other present instrumentality, the sta¬ 
bility and prosperity of the business of the country. The insisting upon the pay¬ 
ment of this tax will bring during the next year a very large amount of money 
into the National Treasury. Between this and August next $30,000,000 must be 
paid in. During the next year, that is to say, from November until the succeed¬ 
ing December of 1885, seventy millions more must be paid. That money, sir» 
every dollar of it, must be used under the law to pay the 3 per cent, bonds of this 
country. It must, every dollar of it, be used to undermine and unsettle and de¬ 
stroy for the time being the basis upon which the banking system of the country 
rests. 

Every word here quoted is true as Holy Writ; yet the gentleman, with 
that severe logic and charming consistency which sometimes character¬ 
ize the conclusions of those who i^roperly appreciate the sacredness of 
party edicts, does not demand the repeal of these dangerous sources of 
revenue. No; he will he content with the postiionement of the collec¬ 
tion of the whisky tax for two years. I can not halt with so lame and 
impotent a conclusion. I oppose this hill, and demand the repeal of 
all internal taxes. Let us wipe them all from the statute-book and get 
rid of the infernal system. 


I do not denounce the excise system as an infernal one on the author¬ 
ity of Mr. Jefferson alone. English history abounds in such denuncia¬ 
tion, and here are statements made before the Committee on Ways and 
Means on the 28th of February by Messrs. Dibkell, Caldwell, and 
McMillin, of Tennessee; Bennett, Scales, and Cox, of North Caro¬ 
lina; Mr. Candler, of Georgia, and Mr. Cabell, of Virginia, to¬ 
gether with those of Senators Vance, of North Carolina, and Brown, 
of Georgia, each one of which justifies the use of the harsh epithet. If 
these ten Members and Senators, all of whom speak from personal ob¬ 
servation, have in their statements come within shooting distance of 
moderation, they have abundantly proven that our internal tax system, 
as administered in their respective States, is in truth and in fact an in¬ 
fernal system, which, in its practical operations, is a disgrace to the age 
and the country. I shall recur to these .statements and make extracts 
from each of them. 

In November, 1881, I portrayed to a popular convention in New York, 
as well as my limited knowledge of the .special facts would permit, the 
hardships with w hich these laws are administered and the depressing 
effect the taxes produce upon many branches of trade. It is not easy to 
make even intelligent men understand the effec.t on general industry 
of this spirit tax which is at the rate, fixed by statute, of 90 cents a 
peck on corn and of $1.78 per gallon on alcohol. Think of it; a tax of 
90 cents imposed on a peck of corn, when the farmer who raised it, his 
neighbor or his customer, attempts to advance it one degree in manufac¬ 
ture. 

Let it be understood that I am not now speaking of table whisky, 
to which subject I shall come directly, but of alcohol, which is nature’s * 
solvent and therefore a vital agent in many of our productive indus¬ 
tries, which enters largely into the arts; w^hich makes the chief ingre¬ 
dient in bulk of the contents of nine out of every ten liquid compounds 
exposed for sale in the store of the druggist and pharmacox>olist; w hich 
in fact enters into almo.st every branch of art and industry, and which 
by reason of this needle.ss taxation adds largely to the cost of many 
articles that are of daily consumption by our laboring classes. 

The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Willis] who jiresses this bill 
with so much earnestness told us the other day that the high-wine dis- 


i 

tillers had an equal interest in this bill with the distillers of table 
whiskies. I do not know that I was ever in a distillery, but I deny 
his proposition, and vouch all nature as my witness. High wines and 
alcohol do not improve with age; no man skilled in the business as dis¬ 
tiller, rectifier, or dealer will aver that the lapse of time improves their 
quality. That their spirit is evanescent and freely evaporates is no¬ 
torious; and every pint,'quart, or gallon of evaporation that occurs is so 
much irretrievable loss to the owner without the golden compensation 
given for evaporation to owners of table whiskies, to which age adds • 
tenfold compensation for the loss in quantity by evaporation. 

^ The gentleman from Kentucky also assured us that failure to relieve 
these table whiskies would shock the commerce and finances of the coun¬ 
try by the depreciation in the price of corn that would inevitably ensue. 
Now, Mr. Chairman, you are not probably familiar with such things 
as Bourbon and rye whiskies or other beverages that heat the blood and 
excite the brain. Therefore, let me tell you that there are two kinds 
of whisky; one of them is Bourbon, which is distilled from corn. The 
other is a distillation from rye and is consequently known as rye whisky. 
The gentleman’s prediction of so dire a calamity challenges an appeal 
to statistics and arithmetic. 

Rye is the prevalent table whisky. The quantity of corn, or Bourbon, 
whisky distilled each year is relatively very small; and*a tornado that 
should in September sweep a hundred-acre Bourbon County cornfield 
would have as great an effect on the price of corn as the entire suspen¬ 
sion of the distillation of Bourbon whisky for a year. The effect of 
neither would be perceptible on the market. 

Mr. Chairman, there is an infant industry, the existence of which 
is scarcely known to the people of this country and which the cham¬ 
pions of the internal-tax system have been very anxious to suppress, 
which will consume more corn this year than distillers of Bourbon 
whisky ever consumed in a year. When I and others have said to 
these gentlemen, “We are collecting too much money,” some of the 
most outspoken of them have replied, “ Well, repeal the duties on sugar 
and molasses and there will be a vacuum into which the proceeds of 
the internal taxes can fiow.” Now, let us, while under the influence 
of the grave prediction of the gentleman from Kentucky, consider how 


relatively terrible would be the effect on the corn market if we should 
abolish the duties on sugar and strangle in its infancy the most grow¬ 
ing of our modern manufactures, that of corn sugar. Why, my friend 
from Kentucky will hardly believe that in 1882 twenty-one corn-sugar 
factories consumed nearly 20,000,000 bushels of corn, considerably more 
than Bourbon whisky consumed in the same year. This product is said 
to have more than doubled since that year. The capital then invested 
in the twenty-one establishments was $6,500,000. The number of la¬ 
borers employed was 3,000; the number of bushels of corn consumed 
that year was 19,500,000; the value of other material used, $1,000,000; 
total wages paid, $1,300,000; the total production of sugar, 67,200,000 
pounds; the total production of molasses, 32,900,000 gallons. Now 

observe; these statistics of an infant industry refer to a period two years 

• 

back. 

Sir, as between the table-whisky syndicate, or any of the monopolies 
our internal taxes foster, and the corn, sorghum, or cane-growing farmer, 
I am for the farmer all the time; and I want to get rid of these internal 
taxes, that we may maintain existing duties on sugar and thus stimu¬ 
late the diversification of our agricultural products and supply onr mar¬ 
ket with sugar from our own fields and mills. 

But gentlemen inquire, would you make whisky free? No, sir. T 
would rigidly regelate the sale find use of all intoxicants. The United 
States Government can not do this; it can only tax, and tax blindly. 
States, on the other hand, can regulate, can supervise, can restrict, can 
prohibit. States, through municipal governments, can, as is done in 
the young State of Nebraska and elsewhere in the West, by their ordi¬ 
nary police regulations, supervise the traffic and check or punish the 
vices excessive use engenders. And if crime and poverty are, as I 
believe them to be, the consequences of intemperance, then in God’s 
name give not to the syndicate of table-whisky distillers but to the 
municipalities who try and punish criminals, who shelter and care for 
inebriates in their age and decrepitude, or worse, in their poor infantile 
orphanage, the victims of inebriety in the persons of their parents. 
Let us put with the penalties we inflict by legalizing the use of intoxicat¬ 
ing beverages the small measure of financial relief to overtaxed munipi- 
palities that they may be able to draw from this source. 


9 


But for the able speech of the gentleman from New York, from which 
I have made a liberal quotation, I would have argued more fully the 
question whether the Government needs any of the proceeds of these 
taxes. I pause now simply to say that without one dollar derived from 
internal taxes this year it will have sufficient revenue to meet every legiti- 
matedemand. Wecan not, however, pledge Congress to appropriate $40,- 
000,000 for the improvement of one stream and begin with live or seven 
millions for one canal and two or three millions for another; nor can we 
appropriate a sum of $15,000,000, to continue at the diminishing rate of 
$1,000,000 per year, to be expended some time, somewhere, by some¬ 
body, in mitigation of national illiteracy; we can not do all this; but, 
sir, it will be a healthy day for our country when the representatives 
of the people shall determine that the time has come for reducing the 
expenditures within their j ust constitutional limits. Let us, therefore, 
determine to relieve and inspire with faith in the Government and hope 
for the future the small farmers of the South by repealing what never 
•was a popular system of taxation in any country, what was resisted by 
rebellion and attempted revolution when first resorted to in this coun¬ 
try, what was repealed at the end of four years when re-establ ished as war 
taxes in 1813, and what has now outlived its usefulness and through 
the harshne.ss of its administration has, as I have already said, become 
a disgrace to our country and age. 

Mr. WILLIS. Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania permit me to 
ask him a question ? 

Mr. KELLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WILLIS. Do I understand you to say you are ready to-day to 
abolish this system and give up this $50,000,000 of tax to the distillers 
who now owe it ? 

Mr. KELLEY. I say to the gentleman that if he has heard my lan¬ 
guage, as I know he did, any time in the last eighteen months on this 
subject, and understood it, as I believe he did, he must know that I am 
in favor of abolishing all these taxes and granting a rebate on unbroken 
pqokages. That is the point on which I stand and have stood for years. 
Get rid of the infernal system. 

Sir, I said that I should appeal to the statements of the members and 
Senators I named. I shall content myself with quoting enough from 


10 


ea<ih of them to sliow that each of them has given me warrant for the 
harshest language I have applied to these laws and the manner of their 
administration in those portions of our country which these gentlemen 
lepreseiit. 

The first of them who appeared before the committee was Mr. Din- 
KELL, of Tennessee. He said: 

He had introduced a bill, which had beeuyeferred to the Committee on Ways 
and Means, in favor of abolishing the internal-revenue system. He had also in¬ 
troduced another bill to take off the tax from brandj' manufactured from fruit. 
The removal of that tax would be a great advantage to farmers and fruit-growers. 
Those men who had small farms and orchards would then be able to get the ben¬ 
efit of their fruit x>roducts. If the whole internal-revenue taxation were removed 
then Congress and the people would know exactly what they were doing and 
how much the revenue would be reduced. Congress would then know how to 
deal with the bill introduced by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means taking 20 per cent, off’ the tariff duties. As it was, the question was left 
all in doubt. He was in favor of taking the taxes off tobacco and fruit brandy 
if the internal-revenue laws were not entirely repealed; and he thought that 
the removal of the taxation from tobacco and fruit brandy would reduce the 
revenue about $26,000,000 a year. 

The report of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for last year showed, 
that the amount of revenue derived from tax on fruit brandy was $1,127,950. 
For the first seven months of the present fiscal year the revenue derived from 
that source was only $716,461, and that period embraced the months of July, 
August, and September, the best fruit-growing months in the year. At that 
rate the revenue from the taxation on fruit brandy would be less than three- 
fourths of what it had been in the previous fiscal year. It was a great burden 
to the farmers to be harassed and annoyed byrevenue officers running through 
the country and watching every man who made a little brandy from his fruit. 
The trouble about the internal-revenue system wasthe manner of its collection. 
In that respect it M'as the most odious law that had ever been executed in his 
section of the country. The cost of collection was also very large. I^ast year 
the salaries paid to internal-revenue officers amounted to $5,113,000. The cost 
of miscellaneous expenses was $49,875, and the expense of revenue agents was 
$127,394. That made the expense of collecting the internal revenue amount to 
about $5,300,000. Besides that, there were the e.xpenses of deputy marshals. 
United States commissioners, witnesses, spies, and district attorneys, all of which 
added together, he thought, would make the expenses of collecting the internal 
revenue at least $10,000,000. 

The number of suits that were begun in the year 1883 for violation of internal- 
revenue laws was 4,558. He wanted the committee to think about the impolicy 
of having on the statute-book a law which harassed and annoyed citizens as this 
law did. The number of judgments wherein the costs were not paid by the 
United States was 2,1.37. The number of judgments against the United States 
was 6.55. 

If these suits did not cost the Government large sums, they did cost individ¬ 
uals very heavily. Every one of them must have cost, on the average, $50; and 
the defendants in these cases were usually a very poor class of men. He thought 
it wrong that Congress would keep on the statute-book a law so harassing to 
poor citizens. It might be said that men ought not to violate the internal-rev¬ 
enue laws. That was true. He admitted it. But men did violate them. 


u 


On tlie second Monday in July last there were in attendance on the Federal 
• court held in Knoxville three hundred and twenty-five witnesses on the part of 
the Government and one hundred and fifty defendants in internal-revenue suits. 
A larH;e majority of the cases were against men for selling patent medicines, such 
as Jerome’s Rye Tonic and Hostetter’s Bitters, without having a license to sell 
liquor, but Judge Key directed the grand jury not to find indictments in those 
cases, and he dismissed them all. 

lie had received a letter from Judge Key asking that the law be repealed. In 
this letter the judge said ; 

*' Is there any hope for the repeal of the internal-revenue law? In this State 
these laws have become the means by which a very large number of disrepu¬ 
table people live, by making themselv'es spies, witnesses, guards, &c., at the pub¬ 
lic expense. Men too lazy to work manage to live at the expense of the Govern¬ 
ment.” 

He had another letter from Judge Baxter on the same subject, favoring the 
repeal of the internal-revenue law. In that letter Judge Baxter said: 

” The public service for the United States is, I regret to say, in very bad hands 
in a majority of cases in Tennessee, and it can never be corrected until it is act¬ 
ively disfavored by the authorities at Washington.” 

Gentlemen will observe that Mr. Dibrell estimates the cost, direct 
iind indirect, to the Government and people of collecting the taxes on 
spirits, malt liquors, and tobacco at $10,000,000 per annum. In view 
of the facts he presents I do not regard his estimate as exaggerated. 
And, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that Congre.ss has no right 
to insist upon the annual expenditure of so large a sum in support of 
those trade monopolies. It would be wiser and more patriotic to re¬ 
peal the taxes and emancipate the working people by thus abolishing 
the monopolies that oppress and plunder them. 

Let me, in passing, and while it occurs to me, say, in support of one 
of Mr. Dibrelb’s propositions, that when you repeal internal taxes you 
can calculate exactly the effect of your action; you can say that the bill 
will, reduce the excessive revenues so much in the year. But when you 
reduce the rate of custom duties no man can say whether you will in- 
crea.se the current revenues or reduce them. It is our experience that in¬ 
crease of revenue has always followed, as an immediate effect, a reduc¬ 
tion of duties; but after the lap.se of a few years, when our markets had 
been flooded with cheap and inferior foreign goods, and our working peo¬ 
ple have lost employment and wages, and consequently the power to con¬ 
sume, the revenue.s rapidly decrease. What we now want is to reduce 
our revenues on the instant if it were possible. To attain this desira¬ 
ble result there is but one certain method. It can not be done by tariff 
tinkering and horizontal or other fanciful but impracticable reduction 


12 


of existing rates of custom duties; the only method by which the result 
can possibly be attained is by the repeal of internal taxes. But I hasten 
to lay before you the promised extracts from the statements of the 
Members and Senators who appeared before the Committee of Ways- 
and Means. 

Senator Vaxce, of North Carolina, followed Mr. Dibrell. Among 
other things the Senator said: 

The people of my State are not unwilling to pay these taxes; but they do ob¬ 
ject most strenuously to the manner in which they are levied and collected. 
That is a burden which creates more dissatisfaction and discontent and more 
actual distress among the people of niy State than any other tax whatever. 
Therefore I am prepared, if the opportunity be afforded me, to vote for an ab¬ 
solute repeal of the whole internal-revenue tax system as it now stands ; and if 
some other and better and more convenient way can not be adopted for collect¬ 
ing it I am opposed to ever reinstituting that tax. But if a method less obnox¬ 
ious can be adopted I for one am willing to see the tax on whisky and tobacco 
retained. 

I know the difficulty of convincing members of the committee of the evils and 
aggravations under which we suffer in North Carolina, because in most of the 
States from which the gentlemen of this committee come the business of distilla¬ 
tion is in the hands of large capitalists and is conducted in large establishments. 
There the tax is collected without any annoyance or trouble to the community 
at large. It is collected from men who live by that business, who make their 
money by it. There one officer (storekeeper or gauger) is competent to attend, 
to a distillery that will produce 1,000 gallons a day, just as well as that same offi¬ 
cer is required to attend to a small distillery in the mountains of North Carolina 
which would produce only 8 gallons a day. There are in the State of North. 
Carolina 1,617 small distilleries, and of that number there are only 6 that can 
produce more than 20 gallons a day. Of the whole number there are between 
400 and 500 grain distilleries and some 1,200 fruit distilleries of a very limited 
capacity, none of them, I suppose, over 10 gallons a day. 

These distilleries are all owned and operated by small farmers. Their fruit 
is the product of their orchards, so there is no speculation whatever in the busi¬ 
ness, nor can there be, in the nature of things, because an orchard can not be 
planted one day and the apples gathered from it the next day. It is a matter of 
years to secure an orchard, and the profit is dependent upon the season. For 
two out of three years perhaps we have no peach crop at all, at least none suffi¬ 
cient for distillation purposes, and not more than 6very other year do we have 
an apple crop, so that it is a small matter and circumscribed, in the nature of 
things. If the tax on the distillation of brandy were repealed, that business- 
could not interfere in any way with the distillation of grain by the great distill¬ 
eries that supply the traffic in this country. The fruit distillation can not be 
made to compete with it. 

* ***** * 

In addition to all this I beg leave to say (I do not know how it affects some 
members of this committee) that the presence of from 1,500 to 2,000 revenue offi- 
eers, excisemen, going about through the country as spies upon every man who 
may be supposed to be a distiller, nosing into his private premises, and exam¬ 
ining his domicile, is a nuisance and an annoj^ance to which a free people ought 
not to be subjected. 

• * * * * * * 


13 


These officers, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, are priviliged to go armed, and» 
ike all men clothed with a little brief authority, their reign in my country and 
their conduct is turbulent, insolent, and overbearing. If a citizen is outraged 
by one of them beyond the point of endurance, and makes the least resistance, 
he is instantly shot down, and instead of his murderer being tried in the courts 
for murder, as any other person would be tried, the case is transferred to the Fed¬ 
eral court, and, as a general rule, the jury is packed and the officer is acquitted. 
We have had any number of instances of that kind. I could enumerate several 
horrible murders that have been committed in my State in this way, the perpe¬ 
trators of which have not been tried in one of the State courts, and I can not 
•enumerate a single ease wherein the perpetrators have been punished—notone. 
I know one well-authenticated case in which a man was indicted in Ashe County, 
North Carolina, for an indecent assault and attempt to commit an outrage upon 
a young lady. He filed his affidavit with the clerk of the court, in which he swore 
that he was in the discharge of his official duty when the offense was committed. 
His case was, therefore, transferred prima facie to the Federal court; but the 
judge of the Fedei-al court indignantly and immediately remandedit to the State 
court. I suppose he was not able to extract any construction from the statutes 
of the United States under which the officer would be authorized to attempt a 
crime of that kind. 

* sj! * 

In every view of the case, looking at it as a simple matter of justice on the part 
of the Government toward its citizens, especially toward its poor citizens, its 
farmers; looking at it in the light of the duty of the Government to make its 
people contented in regard to their taxes; looking at it in the light of the duty 
of the Government to avoid violating what we consider the muniments of lib¬ 
erty (entering a man’s house and subjecting him to indignities under the sus¬ 
picion that he is violatingthe law)—all these things I think require a modification 
of the system, and I hope that this committee will take that view of the matter 
and do something for the relief of the people. 

Senator Vance was followed by Mr. Bennett, of North Carolina, 
who opened his remarks with the following allusions to the excise or 
internal-tax system: 

Before proceeding to discuss the existing state of the law for the collection of 
internal revenue I desire to give the system a kick. Dr. .Johnson defines excise 
as a hateful tax levied on commodities, adjusted not by common justice but by 
wretches hired by those to whom excise is paid. 

Excise laws when first introduced into England in 1733 were denounced in the 
strongest language by the friends of popular governnfent. Pulteney spoke of 
excise as a monster, a plan of arbitrary government. Another authority declared 
it to be such a .scheme as could not, even by malice itself, be represented to be 
worse than it really is. Blackstone, in the first volume of his valuable Commen¬ 
taries, page 378, says that “ it has some advantages; but at the same time the 
rigor and arbitrary proceeding of excise laws seem hardly compatible with the 
temper of a free people. It is necessary to give the officer power of entering and 
searching the houses of such as deal in excisable commodities at any hour of the 
day, and (in many cases) of the night also; and the proceedings are so summary 
and sudden that a man may be convicted twenty times by a commissioner to 
the total exclusion of trial by jury, and in disregard of the common law.” 

Mr. Bennett proceeded to make an animated statement of facts,, 
from which I present the following extracts: 

The profits of farming are always a little less than the jirofits of any other in- 


14 


* 


dustry. Tobacco is grown out of the soil, and is crystallized in the sweat of the 
labor of the country. Its cultivation, therefore, ought to be cherished and fos¬ 
tered by legislation, and the tax which is. at present collected on it ought to be 
repealed. 

When an internal-revenue officer in the State of North Carolina (my horizon 
is limited by a pent-up Utica) starts out to enforce the law which has been vio¬ 
lated (as he alleges) his posse and its mission are denominated, respectively, 
raiders and raids. It is not an attempt, under the civil administration of jus¬ 
tice, to enforce a law which has been broken, but it is an attempt made by an 
officer armed with the commission of the General Government, surrounded by 
a cordon of muskets. The shimmer of the bayonets in the sun-light sharply 
tells how “ young oppression learns its arms to wield.” It is such a cordon and 
such an outfit that starts out to make an invasion upon the crystallized rights 
of the citizen. 

« >ic * * -ic 4: * 

The assessment for deficiencies is the source of more dissatisfaction than anjr 
other feature of the law, except ‘‘the midnight raid, the morning fight.” Now 
lend me your ears, gentlemen, and let the breathing be still a moment, for I 
know what I am talking about. Take the case of a man who owns a distillery 
in the town of Washington, in the State of North Carolina. It is one hundred 
and twenty-five miles as the bee flies from the seat of government in North Caro¬ 
lina. It takes a longer time to get a ten-gallon keg of whisky out of a distillery 
warehouse in the town of AVashington, N. C., to Raleigh, one hundred and twen¬ 
ty-five miles distant, even when the United States stoi’ekeeper is on the spot with 
the door open, than any ordinary business man would require to get a car-load 
of flour from New York city and have it delivered in Raleigh, N. C. If the dis¬ 
tillery should be under temporary suspension with less than 2,000 crallons of 
spirits in the warehouse all the keys must be sent to the collector’s office at 
Raleigh; and should the man at Washington desire to take out a package of 
ten or more gallons here is what he has to do. The man at Washington (little 
Washington), on Tar River, forwards his application to Raleigh for stamps 
through the mail at his own risk, or he pays for registering his letter, or he gets- 
a money-order. All that takes money, and we are as poor there as church, 
mice. We are standing up to our chins in the ashes of our ruins. Do you hear 
me? The distiller is actually paying the Government a premium for the privi¬ 
lege of handling its own money already covered into the Treasury through the 
post-office. That is not all. He is really paying the Government a premium 
for the privilege of handling its own money already covered into the Treasury 
by the so-called collector. When all this is done the collector at Raleigh gives 
a stamp and issues instructions to the general storekeeper to proceed to the 
distillery in little Washington, one hundred and twenty-five miles otf, with the 
keys and stamp and release the ten-gallon keg. 

Then there is another branch of the system. Here in North Carolina (and, 
indeed, it occurs practically everywhere, I suppose) the amount of loss by leak¬ 
age has to be ascertained by regauging, and the tax must be remitted before 
the general .storekeeper has started off with the keys. How they ascertain by 
regauging the amount of leakage from each package under these circumstances 
is a ijroblem. The general storekeeper (taking him at Raleigh) has found his 
quickest way to AVashington to be from Raleigh by way of AVeldon and Nor¬ 
folk, A^a., by rail; thence to Edenton, N. C.; thence by steamer to Jamesville, 
and thence by the Jamesville Railroad to AV’'ashington ; and this trip, owing to 
the failure of connections at certain points, occupies a space of five days going 
and five days returning. And all this expen.se of traveling, and the officer’s^ 


15 


salary at $4 a day, become necessary to release a ten-gallon kejf of whisky, the 
' tax on which amounts to $9. 

Now, is not that making one’s poverty completely splendid? The truth of the 
business is, that we are in such a hurry in this country that we never have time 
to stop to correct abuses unless they are of the most glaring character. The col¬ 
lector, besides, gets a percentage on the stamps sold. This computation of time 
is based upon the supposition that the general storekeeper travels on the light¬ 
ning express, or what we call there the “ cannon-ball train,” between the two 
points. It often happens, however, as I am credibly informed, that the actual 
time consumed in the transmission of stamps between Washington and Raleigh 
is no less than two or three weeks. This engenders much profanity and disloy¬ 
alty. 

Mr. Bennett was followed by Mr. Candler, of Georgia, from whose 
statement I submit the following extracts: 

I desire to emphasize, as far as I am |able, the statement made by my friend 
from Tennessee [Mr. Dibrell], and by the two gentlemen from North Carolina 
[Messrs. Vance and Bennett]. The same state of things which they represent 
as existing in Tennessee and North Carolina, lam prepared to say, from my per¬ 
sonal observation, exists in Georgia. The twenty counties which I represent in 
the House of Representatives from that State have, perhaps, within their bor¬ 
ders more distilleries than all the other counties in the State of Georgia. The 
evils attending the system of the collection of taxes on distilled spirits exist 
there as they exist in Tennessee and North Carolina, and everything that has 
been said by the gentlemen who have already spoken as applying to those States 
applies also to the State of Georgia. 

In addition to the evils enumerated by the distinguished Senator from North 
Carolina has been the shooting down in my own State of innocent citizens—of 
citizens wlio have not violated the law; citizens who are found by those raiding 
parties at distilleries, who happen to be there by mere chance, are shot down by 
these raiders, and when grand juries of the counties in which the crimes are 
committed return true bills against them for murder, the cases are transferred 
to the Federal courts. Not only that, but after the cases are so transferred, the 
district attorneys, the very men whose duty it is to prosecute violaters of the 
law, are assigned to the defense of these murderers of our citizens ; the Federal 
courts holding that in case of crime committed by a Federal officer, and claimed 
by him to be in the discharge of his duty as such, he is not amenable to State 
courts, and districtattorneysare loud in their oratory insuppoi’tof this position. 
I have known that of my own knowledge to occur .in the northern district of 
Georgia. I have known in one of the counties which I have the honor to rep¬ 
resent a case of this sort: Men intrusted with the collection of this tax went to 
the house of a poor farmer and ordered his wife to prepare breakfast for them, 
which she declined to do. They ordered her again to prepare breakfast, and 
she still declined to do it. Her husband came up and, as a matter of course, stood 
by his wife. He said to them, “ Gentlemen, my wife is sick, and we are not pre¬ 
pared to get breakfast for you.” Whereupon they assaulted him, and then went 
to Atlanta and swore out a warrant against him for obstructing an officer in the 
discharge of duty. He went before the grand jury of his county and procured 
indictments against them for assault with intent to murder, and the Federal court 
refused to deliver him, and the officer was defended by the district attorney. 

* * * * * if. 

One other idea I would suggest: It may appear strange to gentlemen, and 
doubtless is strange, that those outrages of which we complain should exist in a 


10 


community that claims to be civilized and enlightened. But they do exist, and 
the reason why they do exist is that the internal-revenue system is so odious that 
good men can not be found to take the positions and to discharge the duties of 
the offices. The result is that the gaugers and storekeepers and deputy mar¬ 
shals are generally bad and irresponsible men and political renegades. They 
are generally men who accept these positions for the money that is in them. 
They are men who have no very well-defined ideas of their official duties or of 
the rights of citizens. 

Mr. Caldwell, of Tennessee, followed Mr. Candlee. The follow¬ 
ing statements of facts are impressive: 

I feel it to be rather presumptuous in me to attempt to say anything in addi¬ 
tion to what has been already so well said, but I will address my remarks in 
some measure to the inquiry put by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Kelley]. I do not think there is any disposition on the part of the people whom 
I represent to rebel against the collection of the tax upon distilled spirits. 

Mr. Kelley. I did not suggest that. Pardon me. I asked whether the repeal 
of the internal-revenue system was impracticable. 

Mr. Caldwell. I did not attribute that to you. I will get to the point directly. 
I think, as stated by my friend from Georgia, that the entire question is em¬ 
braced in this statement: that we want to get rid of a system which is the most 
oppressive, the most annoying, and certainly the most undemocratic (not using 
the word in a party sense) that was ever put upon any people. 

For instance, I will relate an incident in the current history of this business 
in the State of Tennessee. A man by the name of Davis, who stood higher in the 
estimate of the Department authorities than any man who ever held a similar 
position under the internal-revenue system, committed murder after murder, 
and was knighted, so to speak, by all the Federal authorities having control of 
the internal-revenue system. He was promoted, his pay was increased, and he 
was given enlarged jurisdiction. Finally in the street of a town he shot a young 
man who was walking away from him in the back, and he was indicted in the 
State court. His case was transferred to the United States court, and the judges 
of the district and of the circuit court of the United States certified a dift'erence 
of opinion in order to get the question before the supreme court as to the juris¬ 
diction. The supreme court affirmed the jurisdiction of the circuit court of the 
United States. The case came back to the Federal court, and the prosecuting 
attorney of the United States was assigned to the defense of this man. 

Mr. Hiscock. Wlio prosecuted him ? 

Mr. Caldwell. A private counsel. 

Mr. Hiscock. The Government did not prosecute him? 

Mr. Caldwell. No; the Government required District Attorney Warden to 
defend him. Now, how did this man get out? He got out under this state of 
facts : The hurrah which he had created all over the several counties running 
through Mr. McMillin’s district, and my own, and Mr. Dibrell’s, and all over 
the country, had raised such a state of affairs that the authorities finally declared 
an amnesty, and they had an absolute truce and treaty of peace between these 
tyrannous raiders and the men who were fighting against them. And there was 
an agreement that the case should be nolle jirossed in the Federal court, and a 
number of prosecutions dismissed. 

If the committee desires light on the question, I can introduce a gentleman 
who is now in the employment of the Federal Government, Capt. Michael Kee¬ 
gan, who was before the war in the United States Army, and who was during 
the war in the United States Army, who bore the commission of the Govern- 


meat, who is a gallant man and gentleman, who went with this man Davison his 
different raids, but who had the courage and the manhood to protest against his 
lawlessness. Instead of going to a man’s distillery in broad daylight and treat¬ 
ing him as an officer of the Government ought to treat a citizen, they would 
come around in the dark an hour before <lay, and would charge the distillery 
with a whoop and yell, and they would .shout and rearai’ound and scare every¬ 
body to death. If Davis found anything ^vrong, instead of tninsporting the prop¬ 
erty and carrying it away, as he could have done, he would deliberately and of 
malice prepense destroy it before the owner’s eyes. 

What -was the result of this? Under our system of constitutional government 
no branch of the Government should be allowed to place that sort of power— 
the power of judge, jury, and executioner—in the hands of any man, especially 
in the hands of such whiskyfied desperadoes as Davis and his cohorts. Human 
nature would not stand it. They had a regular battle. There were sieges, mines, 
and countermines. Davis was a desperate ehai’acter; I understand that he was 
a rebel bushwhacker during the war, not a regular soldier in arms fighting 
against the Government. The result was that he was finally shot down in a 
county in Mr. Dibbeul’s district by men who had come hundreds of miles, evi¬ 
dently, and had prepared an ambuscade along his path and shot him down 
There never has been a prosecution of these men, because they absolutely dis¬ 
appeared into the earth. They were absolute strangers in that part of the conn 
try. Not a man, woman, or child within one hundred miles knew one of them. 
This man Davis had so concentrated the hate of everybody upon him through 
all that section of country that nobody would think of giving information against 
those who shot him down. 

Next came Senator Beown, of Georgia, from whose well-considered 
statement, corroborating those of the gentlemen who had jjreceded as 
to the cruel execution of the law, 1 submit but a single extract; 

Mr. Chairman, I come here rather on the invitation of my friend. Senator 
Vance, who has been before you and who said that some of the Southern dele¬ 
gation were to api)ear before this committee with a view of submitting some 
considerations on the subject of internal-revenue taxation. My position is very 
well known to members of the Senate. I believe that we ought to repeal the 
entire internal-revenue system. I think it is not the proper basis of collecting 
the revenue. A short period after the terfnination of the war of 1812 our fathers 
Avere a unit on the mode of collecting the revenue. They all consented (Whigs 
and Democrats or Avhatever party names they had) that the revenue for the sup¬ 
port of the Federal Government should be collected at the ports. I believe that 
to be the proper mode. In times of Avar and of great emergencies Ave have to 
resort to all means of collecting revenue, as in the ease of the war of 1812 and ii^ 
the case of the late unfortunate AA'ar, the GoA'ernment Avas forced to resort to 
that means as Avell as to the collection of what it could collect at the ports. 

But Ave have already continued the system much longer than Ave ought to con¬ 
tinue it, I think, and to my mind there are very cogent reasons Avhy it should 
not be continued. The tAA'o armies of collectors are very unnecessary, I think. 
We haA'e at the ports all the officers necessary to collect tl^e revenue of theGo\’- 
ernment. But we haA^e also an army of internal-revenue collectors—a sort of 
political machinery, though I do not speak of it as being used for politics. It 
s a sort of political machinery in my State, and I presume it is in all the States. 
It is increased or diminished according to the Avill of the party in power. Ex¬ 
cuses are found for employing many of these officers aboutelection times. They 
are a A'ery convenient sort of machines for getting up small criminal cases and 


KE-2 



18 


getting costs into the pockets of attorneys, marshals, and other officers. The 
people of my State have been annoyed very much on this question. There is 
no end to the little petty oppressions growing out of the system. My people 
are as nearly a unit (especially in the upper i^ortions of my State where the 
revenue officers have been practicing) in the demand for the repeal of this sys¬ 
tem as they are upon any question. 

ft seems to me there is no use for this machinery. If you ask me whether a 
tax upon whisky and tobaccoshall be collected, I say yes; but I would not have 
ihe Federal Government collect it. I would have the distiller give in a state¬ 
ment of his brandy or whisky, or Avhatever he may have made, to the tax re¬ 
ceiver, and pay the tax upon it to the county or the State. Indeed, I should like 
to see whisky and tobacco pay a large proportion of the State taxes of my own 
State. If they were only taxed as they are now, and if the proceeds were given 
to the treasury of the State, they would pay all the expenses of the State o f 
Georgia, as they would, I think, of every other State. I believe that the Gov¬ 
ernment received some 8140,000,000 last year from the taxes on whisky and to¬ 
bacco. I have not made a calculation as to the aggregate amount of State taxes 
throughout the country, but I suppose that the taxes collected on whisky and 
tobacco last year amounted to as much as the State taxes of every State in the 
Union. If these taxes Avere left to the States themselves and if the revenues of 
the Government were collected as heretofore at the ports, there certainly woul d 
be no need for an army of collectors, and that would be a point gained. 

From the remarks of Mr. Scales, of North Carolina, I submit the 
following extract: 

This is a subject on which I feel, and have felt, a very deep interest. It could 
not be otherwise if I represented properly the constituency which has sent me 
here. I belicA'^e with Governor Brown that this whole internal-revenue taxa¬ 
tion ought topbe abolished at the very earliest practicable moment. The policy 
of this Government, established nearly one hundred years ago, Avas, as has been 
Avell said by Governor Broaa'N, that the expenses of the General Government 
ought to be defrayed out of the customs. The object of our fathers seemed to 
be that there should be no possible conflict betwen citizens and the General 
Government in the matter of taxation. The direct taxes were all turned over 
to the States. That has been the policy of the Government from that time to the 
present except in time of Avar; and when the Avar passed aAvay, our people 
(looking still to that same policy and believing in it) have always insisted that 
the Avar taxes should be abolished. 

Noaa"^, let me call the attention of the committee for a moment to the State of 
North Carolina. We raise in the State of North Carolina from all sources be- 
t,Aveen $1,100,000 and $1,200,000 for the support of our local government—county 
and State. Of that sum about $500,000 is paid, at large, to the State. You haA'e 
heard some of our friends speak of the poverty of the Southern people. We are 
just commencing to recoA'er from the condition in AA'hich we Avere left by the 
Avar. Noav, Avhy, at a time like this, Avhen the Government is rich, Avith a sur¬ 
plus of eighty or a hundred million dollars in the Treasury, keep up these taxes 
in the States? Why refuse to relieve our people at least to this extent? If the 
States want to raise more revenue than they uoav raise for education or other 
purpo.ses Avhy not give them a chance to do it by leaving this taxation to them? 
We will take care of the moral question, and it can not be left in better hands 
bant he people of North Carolina. We Avill take care of the mode of collection. 
If you will just do that Ave Avill be able, if we choose, to add to the $1,100,000 of 
taxes Avhich we now pay in North Carolina $2,500,000 more to be raised from in- 


19 


ternal revenue. We raise now about $150,(XX) for schools—the people of North 
Carolina are deeply interested in the question of education. If we can have tliis 
money irom internal taxation (and 1 think the Government can spare it) not 
only can we increase our schools and improve them, but we can also increase 
the time during which they are kept open in the State. 

This tax is an unequal tax. It rests upon the industries of the country. 
It rests upon the industry of tobacco, which is more profitable, and which adds 
more to the prosperity of the section which I represent than any other one in¬ 
dustry that can be mentioned. Why strike this industry down ? Gentlemen 
tell me that it is the consumers who pay the tax. We do not think that that is 
wherein the difficulty lies about the payment of the tax. AVe do not wish the 
tax to be retained, because it produces monopolies. It produce* monopolists in 
the manufacture of tobacco, and it produces monopolists in the manufacture of 
brandy. This committee reported a few days ago a bill to the House postpon¬ 
ing the time for the collection of taxes on whisky in bond, the reason for it 
being, as I understand, that that interest was sulfering. The bill was reported 
in order to relieve those men who were being crushed out. Now you heard tire 
Senator from North Carolina tell you this morning that the whole fruit-brandy 
interest of Nortli Carolina is crushed out. Mr. Chairman, there are sections of 
that State where a short time ago there were flourishing orchards, which were 
improved and kept up, and which spoke for the prosperity of the country, tiiat 
are now going down and abandoned because the people have no inducement 
to keep them up. 1 hope that it is not the policy of the chairman of this com¬ 
mittee, and that it is not the policy of any member of the committee, to retain 
these taxes indefinitely. I hope that every gentleman looks forwai'd to the 
time (and that vei-y soon) when these taxes shall be abolished, when direct 
taxes shall be left to the States and left'to the control of the States, and wlien 
the General Government will get its revenues entirely from the customs of the 
country. I believe that that time is near at hand. 

The follow^ing paragraph is from the statement of Mr. Cox, of North 
Carolina: 

I am here to ask for relief of some kind. My people have been led to believe 
that they would get some relief at the hands of Congi-ess, and they have gone 
on and submitted, up to this time, comparatively quietly. I speak of this in a 
political sense, not in a party sense, because we have no party in North Caro¬ 
lina on this question. Both parties ask a change in the system. They prefer 
a repeal of the internal-revenue law. I am not speaking, Mr. Chairman, of 
your State of Illinois, where I know that the laws are far less oppressive than 
they are in my State. The large manufacturers of whisky do not feel the op¬ 
pression of the internal-revenue taxation. But our people have been looking 
for some i-elief; and if you give it to them they will go on and feel that Con¬ 
gress is doing sometliing for them. There is getting to be a very bad sentiment 
in portions of North Carolina now. There is getting to be actually a state ol 
warfare there between the officers of the Internal Revenue Bureau and the peo¬ 
ple, and the consequence is that you can not secure the service of any respeci- 
able class of men to act as revenue officers. 

In my district the other day four armed men rushed into a man’s house in 
the absence of its owner and gave as the reason for it to the owner’s wife that 
they were searching for whisky. He had happened, about Christmas time, to 
go into a neighboring county and had got a small quantity of whisky, which he 
had consumed. These men lit a paper and threw it into the cellar and commit¬ 
ted other outrages. The man had no redress in the courts. These revenue offi- 


1 \) 

oers may outrage a man’s family with impunity. There was a case in North 
Carolina where a man made an assault upon a woman ; and when he came to 
be prosecuted for it he actually had the case removed into the Federal court. 
The people feel that they have no redress for these outrages upon them, and 
that raises a lion in their hearts. The consequence is that there is warfare 
going on there, and that matters are getting worse. Every lawyer knows that 
these revenue officers can not be tried in a State court for any offense that they 
may commit. 

Ill the course of his remarks Mr. Cabell, of Virginia, said: 

But, as this discussion is more particularly in reference to the internal rev¬ 
enue, I say frankly that I believe it ought to be abolished—ought to be cut up, 
root and branch. It is a system of taxation that is undemocratic, nnrepublican. 
It is a system of taxation which our fathers deplored. It is only recognized in our 
laws and traditions’as a system to be resorted to in time of war or great public 
peril; and it has been always repealed as soon as the emergency which brought 
it into existence was over. 

This law' was enacted more than t w'enty-tw'o years ago. The emergency w'hich 
called it into existence has long gone by. It was said in the discussions at and 
about the time when the law was passed that as soon as the emergency ceased 
the law' w'ould be repealed. But it has been continued from that day to this. 
It is true that the taxes upon a great many subjects of taxation have been re¬ 
pealed. The tax on incomes, the tax on business and occupations, and a variety 
of taxes of w'hich you gentlemen know, have been all repealed; and the tax 
simply remains now' upon tw'o subjects, liquors and tobacco. There is a tax of 
90 cents a gallon on spu'its, including that distilled from fruit. However that 
internal-revenue system may have operated in the States in which you gentle¬ 
men reside, it has been executed in a spirit of oppression and outrage in my sec¬ 
tion of the country, and in a great deal of the South. It has been executed in a 
manner which constituted it a disgrace to the Government and an outrage on 
the people. 

You have no idea, gentlemen, how' this .system has been worked and operated 
in our country. No matter w'hat you, gentlemen, may think of this system, you 
would not have tolerated it a w'eek, or a day, or an hour in your own States. 
Much has been .said about the moonshiners in the South. A great many people 
have not perhaps discharged their duty as good citizens ought to have done. 
There are bad men there, I admit, just as there are anywhere else, but no more 
in proportion than there are in other sections of this country. If this law had 
been carried out in your respective States in the oppressive w'ay in which it 
has been carried out in my State and other States that I know of, you would 
not have tolerated it a w'eek longer than you could have got to Congress and ac¬ 
complished its repeal. I have seen drawn to one of the Federal courts between 
one hundred and fifty and two hundred poor men from the mountains of Vir¬ 
ginia—men so poor that they would not have had the means to go there from 
their homes if they had to go there on their ow'n account. I have seen men 
prosecuted on the most frivolous pretext. I have seen men convicted who had 
been procured to commit the very crimes (if you can call them crimes) for which 
they w'ere convicted. It is true that the evil is less now'than it was. Much of it 
has gone l)y. But .still there are w'rongs eommitted in the South through and by 
the operation of this internal-revenue system. You can not get the better classes 
of citizens (men w'ho can be depended upon) to take the positions of deputy mar¬ 
shals, spies, informers, gaugers, and all those occupations that have been fastened 
on this system. How long do you suppose people in the Northern States w'ould 
tolerate a system w'hich started out by organizing an armv i company, or a 


21 


■quad, in a time of profound peace, running and ravaging the country with arms 
in their hands, seeking out the most trivial violations of the internal-revenue 
law? 

« 4c « 4: if. 

Mr. Kelley. Your distillers are usually distillers of small quantities of fruits 
or grains grown by themselves? 

Mr. Cabell. Yes. They are poor men in the mountains, who have orchards 
which were planted by their fathers. They are remote from market and have 
■no means or mode of transporting their fruits to market. It is true that these 
people have been brought up with the idea that in regard to agricultural products 
they should be perfectly free to raise them and to make out of them whatever 
they can make; and they feel that it is a visitation upon them by the Govern¬ 
ment to have this crowd of fellows sent among them to undertake to prevent 
•them doing it. 

Mr. Kelley. Do not the fruit and grain distillers of North Carolina, of the 
most of Virginia, of Georgia, and of South Carolina, feel this tax on their small 
production (the conversion into brandy of their own fruit or grain) in their pur.se, 
their basket, and their store ? 

Mr. Cabell. They feel it every sort of a way. 

Mr. Kelley. Then they are not like the owners of enormous distilleries and 
bonded warehouses of the North, where the pay of storekeepers and gaugers 
is an inappreciable percentage of the owners’ profits ? 

Mr. Cabell. They are not at all like that. These small fruit distillers are 
men of small means. They can raise but little in the mountains. The fruit is 
indigenous, as you may call it, to the mountains. They are remote from rail¬ 
roads. The fruit will not bear transportation to market. They can not get it 
to market in any other way except in the shape of brandy. They can not raise 
much grain even in many sections of the country. They depend upon the sale 
of their fruit brandy, in a great measure, for their supplies of meat, bread, 
sugar, coffee, and other things. And when this tax has been levied, many of 
them are unable to comply with the law and pay it. 

Mr. Kelley. Is not the tax of 90 cents a gallon actually a tax of 90 cents upon 
the peck of corn or rye, or upon the quantity of fruit from which it is distilled? 

Mr. Cabell. Yes. 

Mr. McMillin, of Tennessee, who was the last gentleman to address 
the committee, indorsed the statements of the other gentlemen and made 
an earnest appeal for the repeal of the tobacco tax and the tax on fruit 
brandy. 

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I submit to the conscience and j udgment 
of the country whether a system of taxation, the enforcement of which 
can possibly open the way for such outrages and oppression as are here 
disclosed, should be enforced upon a .free people in a season of profound 
peace. It is a war measure. War has three times called it into force; 
the restoration of peace abolished it twice; and peace having been re¬ 
stored and maintained for twenty years, the Forty-eighth Congre.ss will 
vindicate its wisdom, humanity, and patriotism by again removing it 
from our statute-book. 


O 




' ■ - *' . • ■ ■‘^^ s ;v-^' ■‘>-' ’ '' 

1^1 . ’■.V/T ■' r -^V. '. '■ ..M >;■ 



V • ‘. 

. *1. .' ■ 





' I 


: ^ ' • • 


1 /* 


T.,' 


•• \ . 


i 4 


• ,« 
i 


. 

■ 'v 






•r' 




. A 



i. » ^ 






t 




»*,■ 


I • 


*<;• •■ '' ‘.••r 

-■•"*.'• -•‘v\ -i *' 

-y k ^ ', 

, '••;■■ .'A' 

,.'■' ■■ -. ,.'i;*.' 

-v;/'. '^iVit'■ i :k 

. ... , .■' r ' - .. . ; y .^. , ': 

‘ « ' ' . * ,* . , 

♦.. 41 ,. i 

I • . . •. r* ^ ‘ . 

• ■ ‘.A ■ /' ■ ■ ■ ■ / 

V ' . ^.’*1 , < ' 

, .’ ■' 

' '*'* ' .‘V* v' ‘ ( *» 

.•'» ‘f.K • 

■• HI ^ . 


> ' 


¥ 


4 


% 


9 


y 





f '4 , 


i 


0 


4 


0 



9 

\ I 


y .V. 




'V > 



► 


\ 








» 




/• 


t 


» j’ ■, 




i 




« 

4 


t 


J 


'.n 


.1 


* 



/ 


I 



( 





'. t 


.-^1 


I' 


/ • 


-p 


.1 


' * i 




'if 

4 . 


\ 


*• 

4 


, % 


I 

0 




I ( 

<1 


s. 





\' 

V ’ 










IF WE WOULD PERPETUATE THE REPUBLIC WE MUST DEFEND 
AND PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF ITS LABORERS. 


SPEECH 


HON. WILLIAM D. KELLEY, 

OB" 


IN THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


Tuesday, April 15 , 1884 . 


WASHINGTON. 

1884 . 









\ 


SPEECH 

OP 

HON. WILLIAM D. KELLEY. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5893) to reduce import duties and 
war-tariflf taxes— 

Mr. KELLEY said: 

Mr. Chairman : In obedience to the suggestion of friends I am to 
follow the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, whose remarks, however, I do not propose to discuss in detail. 
The premises I shall assume and the general scope of my argument 
will, I think, be regarded *as making a clear issue between us on the 
grave questions he has raised by proposing a bill providing for a general 
reduction of our custom duties. 

I do not believe that a cheapening of goods, which involves a reduc¬ 
tion of wages, can relieve any stagnant American industry. The evil 
from which we are suffering is not that goods are not cheap enough or 
that we can not produce them in sufficient abundance and of satisfactory 
quality. The truth is—and the sooner American lawmakers shall ac¬ 
cept it as a controlling’consideration the better it will be for the coun¬ 
try—that the power of production the world over has, upon the pre¬ 
vailing basis of the distribution of the joint production of labor and 
capital, outrun the power of consumption; that all markets are over¬ 
stocked; and that in every land multitudes of skilled and industrious 
people have, from many proximate but secondary causes, been idle for a 
large portion of many recent years. 

Nihilism in Russia, socialism in Germany, socialism in the western 
and nihilism in the eastern sections of Austria, communism in France, 
socialism accepted by the state within the limits of the British Islands, 
in the promotion of which Gladstone and Beaconsfield were for years 
engaged in a heated race and which will present almost every question 




4 


the British Parliament will consider during the present session, are hut 
expressions of the discontent born of indescribable suffering which the 
masses of the people of all transatlantic countries feel they can no 
longer endure. Enforced idleness, want, and misery are found in every 
industrial center; machinery stands idle part of every year; capital 
claims that it can only obtain its fair reward by further reducing the 
wages of labor, while the average supply of food of the laboring classes 
is in many parts of Europe inadequate to the development and support 
of the human system. 

In a recent letter from Zurich, my daughter, Miss Florence Kelley, 
says: 

Our countryman, Dr.-, informed us last evening that though for fifteen 

years he had been official physician to the poor in some of the worst wards of 
New York, he had never seen in America a case of pernicious anaemia—which is 
the shrinking and decay of the bones of a human being as the result of insuffi¬ 
cient food during childhood and youth—a disease which when it has once at¬ 
tacked the system can not be eradicated by any diet that may subsequently be 
taken; but that “ unfamiliar as this disease is at home, it is so common here 
that the frequent cases exposed at the clinics attract no special attention.” 

Are our Democratic associates in their mad pursuit of cheap goods 
willing to add pernicious anaemia to the list of diseases with which our 
working people are already familiar ? 

A GLANCE AT THE CONDITION OP BRITISH LABORERS. 

Sir, last year I spent three months in England, “prosperous, merry, 
free-trade England.” After the first week my increasing strength per¬ 
mitted me to ride or walk a little each day, and I was tempted to visit 
the slums of London, which I did under proper police protection. I 
also read or had read to me each of the daily journals, and on Satur¬ 
day for thirteen consecutive weeks the articles entitled ‘ ‘ How the poor 
live,” which, written and illustrated by Mr. George R. Sims and Fred¬ 
erick Barnard, appeared in the Pictorial World. 

Enlightened as I had thus been, it did not surprise me to learn that 
distinguished prelates of the established church had in a church con¬ 
gress warned those to whom they had a right to speak with authority 
that the condition of the poor of England, as they had found it upon per¬ 
sonal inspection within a short distance from the palaces of the Queen 
and the Prince of Wales, was as bad as that of the French sans culottes 
in the years immediately preceding the sanguinary revolution of 1793 . 
A dissenting clergyman, the eloquent and devoted pastor of Bloomsbury 



chapel, which stands but a few hundred feet from Bloomsbury Square 
and the solid middle-class mansions around it, said to his congregation 
that he had found but a short distance from the pulpit from which 
he spoke a family of nine, including father, mother, sons and daughters, 
who occupied a cellar not larger than the space marked by six of the 
pews his hearers occupied. ‘ ‘ This was not, ’ ’ he said, ‘ ‘ a peculiar case, 
but one of many thousands.” 

Within a week we have read, at least those of us who watch the papers 
for such indications of the condition of the British people, of a family 
found by the coroner near Westminster’s grand old abbey, and in one 
of the most aristocratic quarters of London, in a cellar without a win¬ 
dow, one member of which—a girl of full age—had j ust died, but whose 
llesh had been largely consumed by vermin before death had come to her 
relief. These are said to be familiar chapters in the lives of tens of 
thousands who, though able and willing to work, can find no place 
among the wage-earners of free-trade England, the country our Demo¬ 
cratic friends present as a national exemplar from whom they would have 
ns accept as indisputable truths dogmas the prevalence of which in that 
country has produced these terrible results. Under their leadership we 
are thus to enter the race with the world for cheapness. They should 
remember that when Cobden and his co-workers began the agitation for 
free trade, Carlyle admonished them that they were entering into a race 
with barbarous nations for the production of the “cheap and nasty.” 
It was he, too, who gave the political economy taught by Malthus 
and Ricardo the appellation of the ‘ ‘ dismal science, ’ ’ because it sug¬ 
gested war, pestilence, and famine as beneficent agents appointed by 
an all-wise and loving Providence as the only instrumentalities whereby 
He could relieve the earth of an inevitable surplus of population. That 
dismal science still prevails in British schools, and consequently no ani¬ 
mal that can be utilized is of so little value in England as an unemployed 
working man or woman with a reasonably good appetite for bean-cake 
or oat-meal porridge. 

“Yes,” I think I hear some of you rejoin, “you studied the poverty 
of London, which is, we are ready to admit, unparalleled.” No; I 
spent ten days, unknown to everybody but my daughter, who was my 
companion, in Birmingham and in visiting the manufacturing towns 
around that rich and beautiful city. We visited so much of the over- 


crowded precincts of the city itself as a lady might ride into, and in 
charge of a policeman I went beyond these limits. Our visits embraced 
Halesowen, Lye, Lye-Waste, and Cradley, where we found women mak¬ 
ing nails, trace-chains, heavy fire-bricks, and galvanizing hollow-ware. 

I observe among those who do me the honor to be present my friend 
from Kentucky [Mr. Turner], who comes to each succeeding Congress 
on the doctrine of free trace-chains, a bill to transfer which article to 
the free-list he never fails to introduce. The introduction of the bill 
does nobody any harm, and I shall continue to welcome him as long as 
I shall be returned and a Democrat comes from that district. 

Mr. TURNER, of Kentucky. I never weary in well-doing, and I 
hope that after a while you will grant us that reasonable request. 

Mr. KELLEY. Oh, yes; you ought to have free trace-chains, for we 
learned that the women who make them, if they are quick and good 
hands, can realize 25 cents a day. [Applause on the Republican side. ] 
And all they have to pay for the privilege of earning it out of their weekly 
wage of 6s. is Is. 6d. for the forge and fuel, and another 6d. for having 
the rods out of which to make the chains brought to the forge. Free 
trace-chains! God forbid that any Kentucky girl or woman should ever 
work at such unwomanly employment for such starvation wages, even 
though it be to furnish cheap trace-chains to my friend and his con¬ 
stituents. [Applause.] 

I say to the gentleman as my friend Emory A. Storrs said to a party 
of Englishmen when at the dinner-table of a friend in London, they 
undertook to badger him on the subject of free trade. “ Gentlemen, 
you do not want to provoke a discussion of that intricate subject at this 
social board. I will admit that free trade is best for you, at least for 
those of you who can afford to purchase anything; but I claim that pro¬ 
tection is best for us. The vital difference between us is that you thiuk 
more a great deal of a cheap shoe than you do of a prosperous shoe¬ 
maker; while in America we think more of the welfare of the artisan 
than of the cheapness of his product. ’ ’ [Renewed applause. ] 

In one of the smallest and dingiest of the forges of Halesowen we 
found two men at work making light nails, such as girls are put to 
making when at 14 years of age the British law allows them to leave 
school and enter upon their lives of unwomanly toil. One of these 
men was a cripple and the other was evidently suffering from pul- 




monary disease. One of them by expending his force for full time 
could earn 3s. per week and the other 48., from each of which sums are 
deducted weekly Is. for fuel and furnace rent, so that at the close of 
the week they had as a net result of their joint toil |1.25. In the 
villages I have named, all of which are appendages of Birmingham, we 
also saw English girls and matrons making large fire-bricks; one car¬ 
rying against her breast or stomach heavy lumps of wet clay, out of 
which her co-worker, it may be her sister or mother, molded the im¬ 
mense jDricks which she who had brought the clay carried to a heated 
space near to where she was to pick up her next load of wet clay. Why, 
you ask, do these girls engage in such work? The answer is a simple 
one; they prefer to make bricks, because they can make 6s., or a dollar 
and a half, net per week, while their sisters who make nails or chains 
can not assuredly earn so much, and are, as I have said, subject to a 
charge of Is. 6d. per week for fuel and rent of forge. 

The chief specialties of Cradley are chains and hollow-ware. There 
we saw girls galvanizing stew-pans, boilers, bath-tubs, and other articles 
of like nature. The desperate struggle for life imposed on British toilers 
by cheap goods and low wages is well illustrated at Cradley. The as¬ 
sured receipt of $1.50 a week will tempt women from the nail or chain 
maker’s forge to the brick-shed. The pay of a galvanizer is |1.75 per 
week; and for this additional shilling girls will pass the forge and the 
brick-shed to engage in a galvanizing room, although the strongest of 
them knows that in less than six months the gases generated by the 
process will vitally impair her health. In this connection I submit a 
brief extract from one of Miss Kelley’s published letters. 

It is characteristic of the neighborhood of Birmingham that each village has 
one industry; thus nailers and chainmakers are as thoroughly separated as 
though their work differed radically and separation were needed. But the dif¬ 
ference between Lye-Waste and Cradley is slight. There are the same forges, 
the same hovels, the same dusty roads, and the .same industrious people. To 
tell the story of the chainmakers, who we watched at their forges, is merely 
to repeat the picture of Stocking Lane, and this I have no wish to do. Here 
and there, however, the forges are interspersed with factories and “works,” 
and the facts as to these works illustrate some of the ills to which the nailers 
eagerly fly in their effort to escape from their peculiar slavery. 

In one establishment we were shown young women at work on galvanizing 
pails, and our guide (who had come over from Lye-Waste for our benefit) ol>- 
served privately concerning them, “They’m flyin’ from nailin’,and they thinks 
it’s a fine thing to get seven shillin’s a week. But they gets poorly, and then 
they gets sick, and then their parents has to keep ’em, and they don’t earn 
nothin’ for a long time till they’m well again.” This we were prepared to be- 


8 


lleve, for we found difficulty in breathing in the first room to which an intelli¬ 
gent foreman showed us. This was a large, dusky room, with a high ceiling, 
and arrangements for ventilation with which we could find no fault. But in 
the middle of the room stood a seething cauldron of a steaming fiuid. Back of 
this stood a man dipping pails in the cauldron and handing them to young girls, 
who swiftly rolled each pail in a heap of sawdust, then deftly brushed the fluid 
over the metal surface, assuring an equal coating to every part. A few moments 
of breathing the fumes from the cauldron made our retreat to the sultry outdoor 
air very refreshing, and sufficed to convince us of the unwholesome nature of 
this work, even before we noticed long rows of carboys of vitriol which furnish 
one ingredient of the galvanizing fluid. “ The inspection is severe,” observed 
the foreman. “ The works are closely watched, and if a girl works a half-hour 
overtime we're brought up roundly. It’s very unwholesome work.” « 

This brief extract will convince you that I do not speak of things of 
which I have merely read. No, gentlemen, I speak of incidents that I saw 
and of people with whom and whose employers I conversed. Sir, I do 
not want American goods to become so cheap that, as my distinguished 
friend the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means [Mr. Mor- 
Eisox] said, we can sell to other people. God forbid that American 
labor shall ever be embodied in any production that shall be cheap 
enough to be sold at Halesowen, Lye, Lye-Waste, Cradley, and other 
manufacturing villages that surround Birmingham. [Applause. ] 

But depressing as was the influence of each of these towns in which 
the employments are in this country regarded as demanding masculine 
muscularity, girls and women are almost the only workers, our visit 
to Myrthyr Tydvil and to the great Dowlais iron-works upon the hill 
overlooking Myrthyr was still more saddening. In the neighborhood 
of Birmingham, Manchester, and Bradford the school law is admirably 
enforced, and during school hours children between 5 and 14 years of 
age are not frequently seen upon the highways. In this Welsh mining 
and iron district the contrast in this respect was as striking as it was pain¬ 
ful. Here it is evident that the local authorities give but little if any 
attention to the enforcement of the only law which protects British 
childhood from the cruelest exactions of British industry. Here we 
found boys and girls loitering listlessly at all hours of the day in the 
reeking admixture of clay and grime which make the sidewalks and 
highways. It would have been a satisfaction to see them indulging in 
any of the plays of joyous childhood, but in our several tours we saw 
no instance of this. 

The factory law, however, has even here had one good effect; it has 
reduce<l the number of women employed in the Dowlais works from 


r 


9 


nearly 3,000 to about 1,000; and for this womankind throughout the 
civilized world may well be grateful. The Dowlais works are en¬ 
gaged in the production of heavy iron of all descriptions; tlie interior is 
a net-work of railroads, forges, furnaces, rolling-mills, and trip-hammers, 
the coarse labor in attendance upon all of which, as well as at the mouth 
of the coal-pit and on the cars, was until quite recently the special and 
almost exclusive work of girls and their mothers. The number of them, 
as I have said, has been reduced to about 1,000, and of these we saw some 
loading and unloading coal-cars; others, one upon the car pitching bricks 
to another upon the wet, rough floor, who piled them according to 
orders; others were handling and carrying heavy iron plates or bars 
from the lifting of which I would have shrunk in my days of greatest 
vigor. 

Ha’V'ing asked the privilege of speaking to any of these women when 
not engaged, we felt free to interrogate them as to their wages. They 
might not have answered me, but to one of their own sex, who ad¬ 
dressed them in tones of sympathy, they told their stories freely; and 
from all of them we learned that 6s. ($1.50) was regarded as good wages 
for a week. I am unwilling to reduce the duties on any form of iron or 
steel 20 per cent., as is proposed by this bill, in order to allow my coun¬ 
trymen to consume the results of the labor of these British maidens, 
wives, and matrons. The plea that their employers, in order to sell us 
cheap goods, must compel them to accept such wages is not one that 
satisflas my judgment, but is one from which my manhood revolts. 

At Manchester we remained nearly a fortnight. It is a noble city, 
the management of whose municipal affairs is unequaled in the United 
States. To Sheffield our visit was less protracted. The houses, grounds 
and conservatories of the great steel-makers who so long controlled our 
market, to some of which we were admitted, are regal in their extent 
and magnificence, but the offensive surroundings of the homes of the 
working people and the brutal coarseness we encountered at every turn 
in their quarter of the city made us glad to beat an early retreat. 

The American traveler finds much to admire in the best parts of Bir¬ 
mingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Bradford, and every other great indus¬ 
trial center of England, but going thence to the localities in whi(;h 
working people dwell he -will, unless he be a tariff reformer who believes 
that to get his supplies cheap is the chief end of man, be shocked by the 


10 


terrible contrast he beholds. In each city and town he will find long 
rows of small honses, between every two of which is an arched alley 
leading to a court, upon either side of which there are from four to six 
houses. These, like the front ones, are without cellars or underdrain¬ 
age, have three small rooms rising one above another, each also having a 
house like unto itself built against its rear wall, the consequence of which 
is that thorough or through ventilation is impossible in any of these 
huddled groups of houses for workingmen and their families. The 
streets are the only play-ground for children, as well aS drying ground for 
the wash of each family, whose patched and ragged garments flaunt in 
the breeze on lines drawn from house to house as if by common consent 
or express stipulation. For the use of the occupants of each court, to¬ 
gether with those of the front buildings, there is one hydrant and one 
privy. In view of these hard conditions is it not too much to expect 
cleanliness, modesty of bearing, or chastity itself of families who are 
habitually huddled together in this fashion ? 

A house in any of the villages referred to, as small or smaller than 
these, of similar construction, with three rooms, the lower one a living- 
room, parlor, kitchen, and sitting-room, and chambers above, which 
furnish sleeping accommodations to the parents, the sons and daughters, 
and not infrequently to the husbands and wives of the sons and daughters 
and their children, all of whom are thus crowded into two little sleep¬ 
ing-rooms. 

Yet it is of these sets of three apartments, contracted, dark, undrained, 
and unventilated, that those apostles of falsehood, Professor Sumner, of 
Yale, and Perry, of Williams College, speak when they compare their 
rental with that of the homes of American artisans to prove the supe¬ 
rior condition of the working people of Great Britain to that of those of 
the United States. 

It will hardly be regarded as possible that other classes of British 
laborers are housed with less consideration- than the facts I have pre¬ 
sented indicate, but the London Echo of Monday, Octobers, 1883, says: 

The paper read by Mr. George Smith, of Coalville, before the social science 
congress, on Saturday, gives a lamentable account of the condition of large 
numbers of canal children. Mr. Smith tells us that there are close upon 30,000 
of these children of school age who never enter a school. Many of the cabins 
in which they live are so small that a man can neither stand upright nor lie 
o\it straight on the bed on which he and his wife and his children have to lie. 


11 


FREE SHIPS. 

One of the most insidious pretences for the overthrow of our pro¬ 
tective system is the demand for the admission of free ships and the 
material out of which ships may be built. Is there such a demand for 
ships to engage in international commerce asto justify us in abolishing 
the duties on pig, bar, angle, and heavy iron generally and on steel 
for the construction of Government and commercial vessels at the prob¬ 
able cost of dooming thousands of our workmen to idleness by opening 
our market to the free sale of British ships for which foreign capital and 
enterprise can find no employment? This is not a fancy sketch of the 
depressed condition of the British carrying trade or of the effect of such 
legislation upon our own coal, iron, and steel industries. This will ap¬ 
pear to the most skeptical from the following telegram clipped from the 
Philadelphia Public Ledger of this morning: 

DEPRESSION IN THE SHIPPING TRADE. 

London, April 12.—The depression in English shipping has beeome extreme. 
The ports are crowded with destitute and suffering sailors. In Shields alone 
there are 4,000 seamen out of employment. A hundred steamers are lying idle 
upon the Tyne. Ten thousand laborers in the Tyne ship-yards are out of work, 
and as many more in the Sunderland ship-yards. Business is slack in the yards 
along the Clyde, but so far there has been less suffering than in the other ship¬ 
building localities. 

RAW MATERIALS. 

Mr. Chairman, the persistency with which the unmeaning cry that 
raw material should be admitted free of duty has been maintained for 
years has nearly persuaded many good people that heavy duties are im¬ 
posed on wide ranges of raw material which we can not produce for 
ourselves. Ignorant men may echo these cries as parrots chatter, but 
the free-trade Democracy, as represented on this fioor, know better, and 
shout for free raw material for the purpose of deceiving the people. What 
article of raw material which they would make free can they name that 
is not and has not for years been on the free-list? The author of the 
original Morrison bill could find none. The free-list was to be a car¬ 
dinal feature of his bill; the 20 per cent, reduction was to be less im¬ 
portant because a less philosophic and a somewhat hap-hazard applica¬ 
tion of the doctrines of British political economy. To illustrate these 
doctrines scientifically an extended free-list was necessary. All this 
the chairman of the Committee on Ways and'Means understood per- 


t 


lli 

fectly, and that list as it appeared in the original hill embraced some 
twenty-five or thirty articles, among which, my friend will pardon me 
for saying, there was not one single specimen of unwrought material. 
Material that has been wrought is not raw. No one will say that broad¬ 
cloth is raw material because a tailor may shape a coat therefrom. 
And so long as the designation raw material may properly be withheld 
from broadcloth so long it must he admitted that the authors of this bill 
were unable to find a single specimen of imported raw material that we 
can not produce that had not already been relieved of import duties. 
The fraudulent character of the claim that the great majority of the 
articles embraced in the free-list of the original bill were of the nature 
of raw material was so apparent, that the majority of the committee, at 
the instance I think of the author of the bill, withdrew all but three of 
them, namely, coal, lumber, and salt, every one of which is a prepared 
or manufactured commodity. 

Is not coal raw, asks some misguided disciple of Sumner and Perry ? 
Yes! When still in the earth and is bought and sold, as children say, 
unsight, unseen, coal is raw; but when thousands and oftentimes hun¬ 
dreds of thousands of dollars have been expended in obtaining access 
to it and preparing it for the purposes of manufactures and commerce; 
when shafts have been opened and breakers and railroads have been 
constructed and provided with adequate motive power and rolling- 
stock, and when hundreds or thousands of people have been employed 
in mining, manipulating, and sorting it so that while the coal shall be 
sent to market the slate and other impurities with which nature had 
intermixed it shall be left behind, it is absurd to speak of it as raw or 
unwrought material. 

Is lumber, as described in the free-list of this bill, a raw material ? 
"No, sir! Timber in the forest is raw; but rough timber and quite a 
number of kinds of hewn timber are already on the free-list. Every 
article of wood embraced by the free-list of this bill as finally revised 
is material largely advanced by the expenditure upon it of money and 
labor. The remaining article in this wonderfully scientific free-list is 
salt. 

Sir, instead of salt being a raw material it is a highly manufactured 
finished product, the raw material for the manufacture of which is brine 
as it wells up or is pumped from its hidden sources in the earth. The 


13 


expenditure of time, fuel, and labor converts the raw material furnished 
by nature into the commercial article known as salt, and which is needed 
by mankind for so many vital purposes. Now, sir, why may not a de¬ 
duction of 20 per cent, irom existing duties on these highly manufact¬ 
ured articles, coal, lumber, and salt, do as well in the way of tariff re¬ 
form as a like reduction on the duties imposed on all the manufactured 
articles embraced by this bill? Will some advocate of this free-list tell 
me the process by which he reaches the conclusion that coal delivered to 
the steamer at the seaboard or at the forge or factory in the remote in¬ 
terior of the country is a raw material? how it is that boards sawed, 
planed, tongued and grooved, and other forms of wood prepared for car¬ 
pentering and cabinet-making are ascertained to be raw materials? and 
by what magical power it is that nature, without the aid of man’s labor or 
the expenditure of his time and money, converts into pure, dry salt 

and packs it into ‘ ‘ bags, sacks, barrels, and other packages? ” It must 
be remembered that this Morrison bill does not propose to put brine on 
the free-list. Oh, no; it provides for free salt, whether in bags, sacks, 
barrels, or other packages, and as it also makes these coverings free, it 
ought to tell us on what kind of trees or vines nature hangs the ready¬ 
made bags, sacks, and barrels as raw material. 

Sir, I deny that the free-trade wing of the Democratic party on this 
floor is in favor of free native raw material or will admit many forms 
and grades of it to use till they have paid inordinate taxes. The two 
materials which enter into more of our mechanical and scientific pro¬ 
ductions than any other are brimstone and alcohol. We import much 
of our brimstone and it has long been on the free-list; but alcohol is 
an American production but one degree removed from a raw ma¬ 
terial in the production, current price of and an extended market for 
which our farmers have a vital interest. I speak of corn; yet, sir, with 
a single exception, these gentlemen who clamor so lustily for free raw 
material and cheap raw material have within a week proposed, voted 
for, and carried a resolution in favor of maintaining and requiring the 
payment of a tax of 90 cents on the manufactured product of every peck 
of corn before it can go into the market and be sold for use in the arts. 
Of the free-trade raw-material Democracy on this floor every man, with 
the single exception of my friend from New York [Mr. Hewitt] (who 
does me the honor to listen to me, and who after three years of contro- 


14 


versy between us as to the possibility of using methylated spirits frankly 
announced to the House the other day that he was in favor of free alco¬ 
hol because it was a raw material which entered into so large a number 
of our manufactures), is opposed to the untaxed manufacture of those 
important forms of raw material, corn, rye, fruit, barley, hops, and to¬ 
bacco. They demand the privilege of importing free of duty an infinite 
variety of foreign manufactured goods under the pretense that they are 
raw, but insist upon taxing all forms of material our farmers can produce, 
including nature’s great and only pure solvent, the rival of brimstone in 
the universality of its use in the arts, at the rate of 90 cents a peck upon 
corn, the raw material from which it is extracted by a single process of 
manufacture. My free-trade friends, if you are in favor of free raw ma¬ 
terial for manufactures, and wish to secure ample markets and good prices 
for the crops of our farmers, why do you insist upon the prepayment of a 
tax of $3.60 upon a bushel of corn before you permit its first manufactured 
yield to go into the arts in the United States ? Out upon such hollow 
and shallow pretenses of devotion to American interests and national in¬ 
dustries ! I should remark that it is the free-trade wing of the Demo¬ 
cracy I thus denounce, for my Democratic colleagues from Pennsylvania 
are all in favor of removing these infamous impositions upon our home 
production and commerce. 

. Before leaving this question finally I should say that the tax we im¬ 
pose on his corn is but part of the wrong we do the farmer. It is a tax 
of more than 400 per cent., and to this extent increases the cost of every 
alcoholic preparation, whether of drug or perfumery, whether collodion 
for the production of a photograph or chloroform for benumbing the 
senses during the operation of the dentist or surgeon, whether the prep¬ 
aration by his wife of her winter’s supply of liquid camphor and arnica, 
or whether it has gone into miy of the thousand articles which he pur¬ 
chases for daily use without suspicion that in their cost he is paying the 
‘ ‘ whisky tax. ’^’ This tax is higher than any duty known to the tariff. 
It increases the cost of almost every manufactured article the farmer pur¬ 
chases, and he should know that they who insist upon its maintenance are 
more devoted to the theories of foreign economists than they are to the 
practical economies of their laboring countrymen. 

THE TOBACCO TAX. 

What is the effect of the tobacco tax upon the interests of the farmer 


and the wage-earning classes generally of the country ? The Speaker 
of the House submitted a proposition to the recent Democratic caucus 
for the repeal of the tobacco tax and reduction of the tax that pre¬ 
vents the small farmers of the South from using the raw material they 
grow upon their peach and apple trees. He, however, coupled with 
these offers a proviso that such legislation would only be granted 
in consideration of the reduction of the duties imposed by the pres¬ 
ent tariff. With this boon to farmers he would bribe their Repre¬ 
sentatives to unite with him in prostrating the manufacturers of the 
country and their workmen. It is creditable to their discretion that no 
gentleman who figured at that caucus lias yet exhibited the courage to 
present such a bill to Congress and the people. This resolution by its 
terms and in the source whence it emanated is so remarkable that the 
country may be incredulous as to my statement; I had therefore better 
present its text as I found it in the Democratic organ the morning fol¬ 
lowing the caucus: 

Mr. Carlisle then ofiFered the following resolution, which was adopted— 88 
to 27: 

Resolved, That in order to reconcile conflicting opinions and secure legislation 
reducing taxation the plan for the reduction of taxes at the present session of 
Congress should embrace a provision repealing all internal-revenue taxes on 
tobacco, snuff, and cigars, and special taxes connected therewith, and also re¬ 
ducing the tax on brandy distilled from fruit to 10 cents per gallon: Provided, 
Such reijeal and reduction shall not be made except in connection with the re¬ 
duction of tariflf duties.” 

Let US look at the effect of this tobacco tax upon the earnings and 
possible savings of our laborers, the repeal of which can be purchased 
only at such fearful cost. During the last fiscal year it yielded some¬ 
thing over $46,000,000, and the bill of March 3 last would, it was hoped, 
reduce the receipts from this source nearly 50 per cent. The receipts 
from tobacco, snuff, and cigars will therefore amount this year to about 
$25,000,000, every cent of which is wantonly abstracted from the pro¬ 
ducing classes of America. No foreigner has hitherto paid or is now 
required to pay the tobacco tax. When it is manufactured tobacco goes 
into a bonded warehouse, and when it is to be exported it is delivered 
to the carrier, released from bond, and free from tax. 

Chewing is not the habit of our wealthy and more refined citizens. 
We rarely find a cuspidor exposed in any part of an elegant mans-ion, 
but we do find in many instances daintily wrought ash-cups and the 


10 


conveniences for smoking in richly appointed libraries. The conse¬ 
quence is that our rich men contribute no part of the millions which 
we derive from the internal tax on tobacco. If they smoke or offer to 
their friends an American cigar it is because they have been cheated 
in a purchase. They pay for and desire to use imported cigars. If, 
therefore, they put any taxed tobacco between their lips it is because 
they have been cheated. 

To learn who contribute the $26,000,000 to the surplus treasure of 
the Government this year you must go into the mines, the furnaces, 
the forges, and the workshops of the country, or watch the groups on a 
fair and pleasant evening that gather about the homes of our working 
people in town and city. Here you will see at the homestead door 
parents and children, and the weary father while enjoying these hours 
of quiet home life is in almost every case seen to be smoking his pipe 
or giving other evidence that he finds comfort in indulgence in the 
tobacco habit. So with the sailor; as he walks his lonely watch under 
the stars or in the beating of the storm he finds a companion whose 
influence is soothing in a quid of tobacco, regardless of the fact that his 
Government is making him pay a tax of Irom four to eight hundred 
per cent, upon its true market value. 

You may reply to these economic truths by saying that tobacco is 
not a good thing for laboring people to use; that it is useless if it is not 
positively inj urious to them, and should therefore be taxed. If you 
rest your statutory infringement of the rights of the American growers 
and consumers of tobacco upon this doctrine, will you not do me and 
those of your countrymen who are burdened by these unnecessary 
taxes the favor to read the clause in the Constitution which justi¬ 
fies you in mulcting with pecuniary penalties those who find comfort 
in its use, as do the miner, the sailor, and the millions of those employed 
in every department of labor within the broad limits of our country 
from whom this tax will this year abstract $26,000,000 ? 

Before these taxes were imposed the workingman in any Northern 
city or town could for 1 cent buy four cigars made of better tobacco 
than he now buys for use in his pipe; but the tax on each cigar is now 
more than the price was or would be again for the grade of cigars of 
which I speak if the tax was repealed. To remove the tax on tobacco 
would be to remit to the industrial classes of this country from twenty 



/ 


17 


to twenty-five millions of dollars a year, and the responsibility for not 
doing it, as well as for maintaining the tax on alcohol, which goes into 
the arts, rests with that party which has a majority of seventy in this 
House. 

TAUGHT BY EXPERIENCE. 

The producing classes of England are at last realizing how great a 
burden upon them is the excise or internal-tax system. Many of them 
are confused by the fact that Ihe government ingeniously speaks of 
an internal tax as an excise duty, and as yet fail to see the vital con¬ 
trast in the effect of a burdensome tax and a protective duty; hut ex¬ 
perience is very rapidly enlightening them on this point. Here is a 
curious illustration of the fact I assert, the report of which I clipped 
from the London Standard of April 4, 1883, on which day it appeared 
as current news in all the leading journals. Gentlemen will observe 
that the chancellor of the exchequer, in closing his interview with a 
deputation, said: 

There was no doubt, having himself gone over Tiffany’s and the Other large 
shops in New York, that the development of the silver trade in the States was 
due to their fiscal policy. , 

This admission by the British chancellor of the exchequer is a severe 
refiection upon the course now being pursued by the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means and his followers in striving to reverse 
the fiscal policy to which our manufacturing supremacy is due. But 
here is the article itself: 

A deputation of the representatives of the silver trade in London waited yes¬ 
terday on the chancellor of the exchequer in respect to the silver duties. The 
deputation was introduced by Sir George Campbell, M. P. Mr. E. J. Watherston 
and Mr. Johnson laid the views of the deputation before the chancellor of the • 

exchequer, strongly urging the abolition of the duties on silver, as tending to 
cripple the trade far in excess of any value to the revenue likely to accrue. An¬ 
other member of the deputation urged upon Mr. Childers the desirability, if the 
revenue did not permit of the reduction, to replace the silver duties by a 10 per 
cent, duty on imported watches and clocks, which would exactly make up the 
deficiency and at the same time benefit the interests of workingmen. 

Mr. Childers in reply said it was scarcely the time to come before Parliament 
to ask for the remission of so important a sum, exceeding £100,000 In reference 
to the plea that the present duty of Is. 6ci. per ounce restricted trade it was a fact 
that of late silver had fallen in price Is. per ounce, and yet the sales had de¬ 
creased. With regard to the proposal to place a duty on watches and clocks he 
asked if that was not protection, and did the member of the deputation seriously 
ask him to adopt that policy? 

The Member. We would if we thought there was any chance of getting you 
to do so. 


Ke-2 


18 


Mr. Childers said there was no doubt, having himself gone over Tiffany’s and 
the other large shops in New York, that the development of the silver trade in 
the States was due to their fiscal policy. But he questioned the feasibility of 
giving effect to the proposals, though he promised to give the subject his thorough 
consideration. 

The admission of the superiority of our financial system from such 
a source is a noteworthy fact, but the demand by so influential a depu¬ 
tation for the repeal of internal taxes and the substitution therefor of 
protective duties is a fact of such common occurrence as to deprive the 
body of the article of a title to special notice. 

Mr. Chairman, the working people and the tax-payers of England 
are no longer exulting over the prosperity they derive from free trade. 
They are convinced that a financial system which burdens its labor, 
capital, and enterprise with internal taxes while subjecting them to 
free competition with the productions of the most inadequately paid 
labor of the world is false and destructive. Here [holding up a pack¬ 
age of pamphlets] are a few protectionist pamphlets. They are from 
British workingmen, manufacturers, ship-owners, members of Parlia¬ 
ment, barons, earls, and dukes. The Earl of Dunraven is a leading 
man in the movement, and from one of his latest speeches, which came 
to me but last evening in the Iron Age of the 10th instant, I propose 
to show you some of the effects of low duties and internal taxes upon 
what was the foremost nation of the world when little more than forty 
years ago she insanely embraced the dismal science and engaged in the 
race for the cheap and nasty. 

I find the speech in the report of a fair-trade demonstration at Bir¬ 
mingham. The proceedings were published largely in the press not 
- only of Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, and other manufacturing 
towns, but of London. The Earl of Dunraven is president of the Fair- 
Trade Association of Great Britain. In the course of his remarks at the 

Birmingham demonstration he said: 

It was claimed that England has benefited greatly by free trade. The great 
strides she made after the abolition of the corn laws are all attributed to the 
change in our fiscal system. That was partially but by no means altogether true. 
There were a great many other causes at work besides free trade. Free trade 
was of great benefit to us at one time, for the simple reason that we had the mo¬ 
nopoly of the world’s markets. 

The people of the United States have not a monopoly of the world’s 
markets, and therefore free trade can not be of the same benefit to them 
that it originally was to those who had that monopoly. 


19 


Other nations had no means of supplying themselves with goods. They had 
to buy from us, and consequently as our market was assured, as there was no 
difficulty in selling, it was an immense benefit to us to be able to buy everything 
as cheaply as possible. But since then things have altered very materially. 
Foreign nations have not only learned to supply themselves, but they are be¬ 
ginning to supply others. Although it is true that England made great strides 
under free trade, it is equally true that other nations have made as great, or even 
greater, strides under protection. The United States had increased £165,0(X),000 
in accumulated wealth, France £75,0(X),000, and Great Britain £65,000,000. In per¬ 
centage of trade increases Great Britain was only 21 pc'r cent., while the United 
States was 67 per cent. In fact England was the last of the nations, instead of 
the first, as she ought to be. 

Gentlemen will please notice that this statement is no “ wandering 
Yankee’s lie,” but the statement of the Earl of Dunraven when sur¬ 
rounded by manufacturers and other influential personages from every 
part of England. Let me j ust here invite attention to a vital fact. In 
the race for cheapness manufacturers leave well fed countries and 
find their way to those in which labor is most depressed, and whose 
people, therefore, work for the smallest modicum of food and cloth¬ 
ing; we find confirmation of this fact in a speech made by Mr. Robert 
P. Porter, late secretary of our Tariff Commission, at a fair-trade con¬ 
gress at Leamington, England, November 10, 1883. It may be well for 
me to say in passing that by the cry of fair trade is meant the repeal 
of internal taxes and the imposition of such duties on imports as will 
give British labor at least an equal chance with that of foreigners in 
British markets. It is a protest against free trade as advocated by our 
Democracy. In the course of his admirable address Mr. Porter said: 

In France and Germany the industrial progress during the last ten years has 
been more marked than in Great Britain. The most dangerous of England’s 
continental competitors in the textile industries may be found at Lille, Roubaix, 
Tourcoing, Rouen,and St. Etienne, in France; and Crefeld, Aachen, and Chem¬ 
nitz, in Germany. The Rhenish and AVestphalian coal and iron districts, with 
such works as those of Essen and Dortmund, and those atSeraing, Belgium, can 
I)roduce iron and steel as cheaply as England can, and the certainty of a home 
market gives these protective countries the advantage in the contest for foreign 
trade. In view of this you will not be surprised when I tell you that I have 
found shoddy manufactures from Batley and Dewsbury established in Aachen, 
Prussia; Lancashire and Scottish spinners in Rouen; Leicestershire hosiery man¬ 
ufacturers in Saxony; Yorkshire wool-combing establishments in Rheirns; Dun¬ 
dee jute mills in Dunkirk; all-wool-stuff manufacturers in the vicinity of Rou¬ 
baix ; English iron and steel mills in Belgium, and English woolen mills in Hol¬ 
land. I conversed with some of the gentlemen owning or superintending these 
mills, and was told that they could manufacture cheaper in these protective 
countries than in free-trade England. Removing their capital to the continent 
has secured a profitable home market, while England was near with widely 
open ports to serve as a “dumping ground” to unload surplus goods made by 


foreign labor superintended by English skill. In this way the English markets 
are swamped and the laborer undersold. 

CONTRACTING OCR INDUSTTIES. 

Mr. Chairman, by the reduction of duties that were not excessive 
and the total repeal of others we have begun the dangerous work of 
expelling manufactures hitherto well established in our midst. When 
the Forty-seventh Congress assembled it was my hope and that of my 
protectionist associates, and I think it was also the hope of the really 
conservative men of the country, that while there might be reduction 
of duties in some instances, there were others in which by departmental 
or judicial decision or Congressional action duties under which indus¬ 
tries had grown up had been fatally reduced, which might now be re¬ 
stored. In this hope we were disappointed; a vigilant minority proved 
in many instances capable of not only preventing restoration of just 
duties, but in alliance with a few Republican malcontents were able to 
reduce others below the protective standard. This action, together 
with that of the Forty-sixth Congress, in putting quinine on the free-list 
effected the banishment of several branches of industry which are of 
national importance, if not essential to national independence. 

For many years we manufactured the best and purest quinine and 
cinchonidia that were produced anywhere; their character and quality 
were unquestioned. But two establishments in the world assumed to 
compete with us in these respects—the Howards of England and Pelle¬ 
tier of France. The tax of 90 cents a peck on corn when manufactured 
imposed a duty of $1.80 per gallon on alcohol, the solvent vital to the 
manufacture of these drugs, but it could be paid because a protective duty 
countervailed this otherwise destructive tax; but by a united Demo¬ 
cratic vote, aided by a few misguided but professed protectionists, 
quinine, cinchonidia and all other salts of quinia have been put upon the 
free-list. The gentlemen on that side of the House who engineered 
and accomplished this work tell the country that they are for a revenue 
tariff; they even tell us in the face of what we have seen them do in 
this very matter that they are for a revenue tariff. 

Let us test their sincerity by this action of theirs. To in part coun¬ 
tervail the tax on alcohol, cinchona bark had been put on the free-list, 
and when quinine and cinchonidia were also put there, what revenue 
from these drugs had these revenue-tariff men left the Government? 


s 


21 


To this extent, at least, their demand lor a revenue tariff is like ti- ir 
protestations in favor of free raw material—hollow and insincere. 

What has been the result of this absurd legislation? Why, Mr. 
Weightman, the surviving member of the firm of Powers & Weight- 
man, determining not to be driven from a business to which he had de¬ 
voted the best years of his life, sent a competent agent to Europe to 
establish a manufactory of quinine and cinchonidia where wages were 
low. Within six weeks he has purchased the largest establishment of 
the kind in Germany, and having shipped his stock of raw and partially 
manufactured materials and his retorts and other implements, has 
also sent that brilliant chemist and scientist Dr. John Weightman 
to superintend the manufacture by German laborers of quinine, cin¬ 
chonidia, and other salts for his oldcustomers and those of his old home 
competitors. With German wages and free alcohol he can undersell 
all American competitors, and thus monopolize the American market, 
as well as secure a good share if not all the money the Government 
used to receive from the duty on quinine and other salts of quinia. By 
thus banishing one house we have closed all the others and made the 
United States the dumping-ground for the cheap and adulterated qui¬ 
nine of all irresponsible continental manufacturers. 

The argument with Mr. Weightman is that if the United States pro¬ 
hibit him by law from following his business here he will pursue it 
elsewhere, and if he thus makes apparent to his countrymen the inevit¬ 
able results of such absurd legislation, he may do some good to the fut¬ 
ure industries of the country he loves and which is so gifted with raw 
material. Thus did anti-protective legislation banish one vital indus¬ 
try and deprive a few hundred American laborers of employment. But 
we have recently perpetrated graver follies of the same kind. 

The Republican party had put a duty of cents per pound on tin 

\ 

plates, under which duty the manufacture of such plates was success¬ 
fully established at more than one point, when the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment succeeded by some means in permitting itself to be persuaded that 
a comma, which if removed to another clause would reduce the duty 
to 1 1-10 cents per pound, was out of place. It thereupon, instead of 
referring the question to Congress who had put the comma there, or- 
deied the suggested change to be made and thus ruined the proprietors 


/ 


22 


of the young establishments who were just organizing a prosperous busi¬ 
ness and perpetuated our dependence on Great Britian for the |20,000,000 
worth of tin plates we consume per annum. So, too, a decision of the 
Treasury first, and Congressional action subsequently confirming it, re¬ 
duced the duty on cotton-ties and hoop-iron cut to lengths, and left the 
American market at the mercy of foreign manufacturers, because no es¬ 
tablishment in the country could pay American wages for the manu¬ 
facture of these articles in competition with the starvation wages of 
England. 

In the last revision of the tariff there was a special provision that 
where two or more rates of duties were made applicable to the same 
article the highest rate should be applied by the Treasury. This was 
the case as to iron and steel wire rods, to which in construing different 
parts of the bill it was found three rates were applicable. To solve this 
difficulty the Department practically ruled that Congress meant lowest 
when it said highest, and declared the lowest duty, six-tenths of 1 
per cent., to be that which must be collected. Thus was banished from 
the country the manufacture of iron and steel wire rods; and I am in¬ 
formed by my friend from New York [Mr. Hewitt], whose authority 
on this point no Democrat will dispute, that he and all other Ameri¬ 
can manufacturers of wire rods, which was a large and very important 
branch of the iron trade, are now unable to manufacture rods in compe¬ 
tition with the low prices prevailing in Europe, and have had to abandon 
the manufacture of rods and import their entire supply. 

Mr. HEWITT, of New York. Let me interrupt the gentleman to 
say that it was your tariff that did it, and not a Democratic tariff. 

Mr. KELLEY. I am not discussing the question whether the tariff 
enacted last session was adopted by Republicans or Democrats, but can 
truly say that if 20 per cent, of the Democrats in each House had 
united with the Republicans we would have put through a tariff which 
would have prevented the destruction of the gentleman’s business and 
allowed his firm to continue to make its wire-rods in this country and 
by the aid of American workmen. 

Mr. HEWITT,' of New York. Would you have allowed me to fix 
things on the conference committee? 

Mr. KELLEY. Yes, sir. But no Democrat would accept a place 


23 


on tliat committee save Mr. Carlisle, who, by consent of his partisan 
friends, did so that he might report what was done by the committee. 
Senator after Senator declined to serve, and we waited nearly a day 
just at the close of the session in the hope of getting Democrats to come 
in and aid in perfecting the complex details of the bill. 

Mr. HEWITT, of New York. Then the whole performance was a 
Republican performance, according to the gentleman’s own statement, 
and they are wholly responsible for the result. 

Mr. KELLEY. No. Democrats like you shirked it; and the Re¬ 
publicans who sat on the conference committee had to deal with the 
material sent it. The effort was to defeat the bill by delay, and thus 
Democratic tactics made it necessary to deal summarily with many parts 
of the bill. 

Mr. HEWITT, of New York. Allow me to state that Democrats like 
myself were not here. 

Mr. KELLEY. The gentleman palters with the question, and will, if 
permitted, consume my time as that of the committee of conference 
was so nearly consumed by Democratic delays. I must therefore pro¬ 
ceed by asking the gentleman from New York or any of his Democratic 
associates to tell me whether it is the Republicans of the House who 
are here and now proposing to further reduce the duty on wire rods 20 
per cent. ? Who voted to consider the proposition to-day, the Demo¬ 
crats or the Republicans? The gentleman talks about and endeavors 
to confuse what occurred a year ago; but I propose to go back but two 
hours, so that the day’s Journal can tell the most oblivious of us what 
he has just done. [Laughter.] There will l>e no question of veracity 
between us on a journalized fact not two hours old. 

A MANUFCTURING NATION WITHOUT WORKSHOPS. 

Havihg shown that the Briti.sh ship-building interest is much de¬ 
pressed, aud that British sailors and ship-owners are suffering greatly 
by the depre.ssion of the carrying trade, let me now proceed to furnish 
proof of the proposition that if the nations of the world are to compete 
simply for cheapness of production, and if cheap commodities for con¬ 
sumers is the chief end of man and the highest object of government, 
general production must be transferred to those countries in which the 
laboring classes can keep soul and body together on the least amount 


24 


and cheapest character of food. It was in support of this theoir that I 
invited your attention to the fact that British capitalists whose lives have 
been devoted to the production of leading British fabrics and wares 
have carried their capital and skill to foreign countries in which, by the 
aid of lower wages, they can manufacture more cheaply, and after sup¬ 
plying the country to which they have gone, can dump their surplus 
goods free of duty into merry, old, free-trade England, the predominant 
characteristic of which is coming to be the prevalence of idleness, pov¬ 
erty, and starvation. 

The rapidity with which the burden of excise duties or internal taxes, 
the weight of which is not offset by countervailing protective duties, is 
verifying the prediction made by Sir Edward Sullivan about fifteen years 
ago, that under this policy England would soon become a manufacturing 
nation without workshops, would long since have awakened to a sense 
of danger a people who were less enslaved by fetich worship than are 
the political economists of G-reat Britain. Here is the Manchester Ex¬ 
aminer of March 27 telling us of the closing and destruction of Messrs. 
Jackson’s textile mills at Blackburn. It is not so suggested, but it is 
nevertheless quite within the range of possibilities that the Messrs. 
Jackson will transfer their mill to India, where wages are lower and 
production cheaper than in any country of Europe. 

In consequence of bad trade and their inability to effect an insurance on the 
older portion of their mills in George street west and neighborhood, Black¬ 
burn, the firm of Messrs. R. R. Jackson & Co. have given orders for the whole 
concern to be closed, and both in the spinning and weaving departments the 
hands are wmrking up the material on hand. It is expected that they will all 
have finished within three weeks. The old mill and the new mill, containing 
71,000 spindles, are to be razed to the ground, and the material sold. Phoenix 
Mill, which has been only recently rebuilt after a fire, is to have its looms taken 
out and sold, and then sold as a spinning mill, containing 18,000 spindles. In 
the two first-named mills the whole machinery is new and on the throstle prin¬ 
ciple. The three weaving sheds, containing re.spectively 733,365, and 185 looms, 
are to be let, either separately or together, as going concerns if possible. Messrs. 
Jackson pay over £1,000 weekly in wages, having in their various mills, which 
form one great block, 89,000 spindles and 1,500 looms. The whole of the build¬ 
ings to the west of the watch-house are to be pulled down, and these are the 
most extensive portions of the premises. 

INDIA’S WRONGS AND BRITAIN’S PUNISHMENT. 

Mr. Chairman, the story of the recent industrial progress of India is in 
my j udgment more instructive so far as economic questions are concerned 


/ 


^5 


than that of any other people. No measure that promised to prevent 
the diversification and restrict the quantity of Indian manufactures to 
which their powers might be extended has been omitted by either the 
British or the Anglo-Indian Government. For many years the Indian 
tariflf imposed a duty of from 3 to 5 per cent, on cotton goods imported 
into that country and admitted raw cotton duty free. To these pro¬ 
visions Lancashire uttered no objection so long as she enjoyed a practi¬ 
cal monopoly of the Indian market. But 10 cents a day is liberal pay 
for an Indian weaver or spinner, and in the race for cheapness India was 
beating Lancashire; this if it could prevent it the British Government 
must not permit. The viceroy, doubtless under instructions from the 
home government, submitted to his council a proposition for the repeal of 
the duty on imported cotton goods. The council, pointing to the revenue 
the duty yielded, £1,000,000 annually, reminded the viceroy that this 
large sum had failed to prevent a deficiency in the budget, and voted 
against the proposition. The council was powerless, and the viceroy by 
an arbitrary edict abolished the duty. 

This, however, was not enough to satisfy rapacious Lancashire. Low 
wages compensated for the loss of duty, and the number of Indian mills 
continued to increase. This sign of prosperity among pagan subj ects the 
Christian Government of Great Britain could not tolerate so long as 
there was a hope of its defeat. How could that be accomplished ? Lan¬ 
cashire was quick to suggest means. The short-staple cotton of India can 
not be worked successfully without an admixture of long-staple foreign 
cotton, which had always been admitted free of duty, but this should now 
be subjected to a tax; and, against the protest of every chamber of com¬ 
merce in India, in 1875 a tax of 5 per cent, was imposed on all raw cot¬ 
ton which should thereafter be imported iuto the country. No violation 
of the principles of British political economy could be more flagrant 
than this. 

The Calcutta Englishman of August 5, 1875, said: 

If the details given in the telegram which we publish this morning are correct 
the new tariff bill is about as infamous a measure as ever a subservient legis¬ 
lature sought to impose upon a voiceless people. An import duty on raw material 
is under any circumstances one of the worst modes of raising the revenue that 
can be devised. But the duty which the Government is about to impose on a 
particular quality of raw cotton imported into this country is nicely calculated 
to pioduce the greatest amount of injury that could possibly be inflicted by such 


26 


an impost. The present viceroy is too acute an economist not to know what 
the elfect of such a measure must be, and it is impossible to resist the conviction 
that it is for the sake of the injury it will inflict on India that the measure is 
proposed. 

He who wishes to read the details of this infamous procedure will 
fiud it condensed into a few images of David Syme’s Industrial Science. 

But—terrible experience for Lancashire!—the result ot this inhuman 
action of the British Government of India has proven that Indian la¬ 
borers, whose food is exclusively rice, can live for less than 10 cents a 
day. Let me reserve the district of Orissa from this statement. It is 
an agricultural district, from the rivers of which the people take fish 
sufficient for winter food. Upon the salt to preserve the fish there is 
imposed a direct tax of 500 per cent. Ten cents a day will not always 
support a laborer in Orissa; for within the memory of my friend the 
500 per cent, tax on salt has twice doomed the people of the district to 
permit their whole catch of fish to rot and the province of Orissa to the 
loss of a million of its people by famine. 

[Here the hammer fell. ] 

Mr. CHACE. I move that the time of the gentleman from Penn¬ 
sylvania be extended. 

The CHAIKMAN. Is there objection to the time of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania being extended? The Chair hears none. 

Mr. KELLEY. With thanks to the committee, I proceed to bring 
to its attention a body of facts which, while they confirm the theory I 
am supporting, also prove that a just God is enabling the poor, per¬ 
secuted, hunted, and starved millions of British Indians to punish their 
oi^pressors by crowding English productions out, not only of the Indian 
market but out of Oriental markets generally, by means of the cheap¬ 
ness at which their oppressors have compelled them to work. 

Prominent among the manufacturers and warehousemen of Man¬ 
chester is Mr. Robert Barclay. He is a frequent contributor to the 
press when economic questions are under consideration. His latest 
pamphlet, entitled ‘ ‘ Foreign competition and the silver question, ’ ’ 
furnishes the following impressive facts: 

There is little direet data obtainable showing the displaeement of British man¬ 
ufactures in India itself by the Bombay mills. The Calcutta import-list, how¬ 
ever, giving imports from other Indian ports, shows an increase in yarns (pre¬ 
sumably from Bombay) of from 8,814 bales in 1879 to 15,899 bales in 1882. Other 


27 


articles, such as T cloths, under this head also show a rapid increase ; but le 
exports may be included, and I do not give the figures. As negative evidence, 
however, the stationary, or rather the declining, figures of the imports from 
England, as shown in the Indian statistics, which give more full details than 
our own board of trade returns, are very suggestive. They are as follows for 
the last three years: 



April 1 to March 31 



1880-’81. 

1881-’82. 

1882-’83. 

Manufactured gray piece-goods 
imported into India from the 

Yards. 

Yards. 

Yards. 

United Kingdom. 

Manufactured bleached piece- 
goods imported into India from 

1,160,745,903 

1,093,756,075 

1,079,849,622 

the United Kingdom. 

Manufactured colored, printed, or 
dyed goods imported into India 

282,764,355 

267,473,795 

231,939,081 

from the United Kingdom. 

315,373,965 

251,612,193 

318,369,975 

Total. 

1,758,884,223 

1,612,872,063 

1,630,158,678 


As regards the inerease of exports from India the following figures speak for 
themselves: 

Exports of yarns to China, Japan, <fcc. 


Year. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

1876-’77.. 

Pounds. 

7,926,710 
15,600,201 
21,333,508 
25,862,474 
26,901,346 
30,786,30*1 
45,223, (XM) 
22,282,567 

£367,303 
682,059 
886,481 
1,109,234 
1,282,576 
1,368,836 
2,014,100 
866,250 

1877-’78. 

1878-’79. 

1879-’80. 

1880-’81. 

1881-82... 

1882-’83. 

1883—one-half year, April 1 to August 31. 


Exports of piece-goods to China, Japan, &c. 


Year. 

Yards. 

Value. 

1876-’77. 

15,5-14,168 
17,545.464 
22,661,231 

£373,657 
372,304 

1877 ’78... 

187^’79. 

420,150 

1879-’k>. 

25,800,501 

444,309 

18^’8i. 

30,424,032 
29,911,017 
41,563,000 
24,880,355 

540,711 

18S]-’82 . 

556; 409 
759,800 
374,092 

1882 ’83 . 

— on#*-balf y^s^.r Ajwil 1 to August 31... 


The following particulars, also taken from a Chinese newspaper in March last, 
show the Bombay yarns were cutting out English yarns at the port of Hong- 


Xong, Bombay yarns having increased from 3,000 bales in 1875 to 75,000 bales 
in 1882, while English yarns had decreased during the same period from 16,000 


bales to 11,000 bales. 











































28 

Table shoioing number of bales of 16s to 24s shipped to Hong-Konj. 


' 

1875. 

1877. 

1878. 

1879. 

1880. 

1881. 

1882. 

Bombay yarns. 

3,000 

16,000 

16,000 

12,000 

24,000 

13,000 

40,000 

12,000 

39,000 

19,000 

55,000 

15,000 

75,000 
11,000 

English yarns. 



Mr. Barclay in this instance confined his investigations to the cotton 
textile trade, with which his interests are so largely identified, and his 
facts are certainly very suggestive. They are, however, more than con¬ 
firmed by the Economist, the highest financial and economic authority 
in England. In the issue of that paper of the 29th of last September, 
under the title of ‘ ‘ Some features of the Indian trade, ” is an elaborate 
notice of the annual review of the foreign trade by Mr. J. E. O’Connor, 
the assistant secretary to the department of finance and commerce, from 
which review I make the following brief extracts: 


The bulk of the Indian trade is with this country, but of late years we have not 
been securing so large a proportion cf the business as we formerly did. In thv 
five years ending March, 1877, the proportion of the trade with the United King¬ 
dom to the whole trade of India averaged 60.72 per cent.; for the following five 
years the average was 56.53 per cent., while last year it was 55.31 per cent. 

* * * * * ♦ ♦ 
Although, however, this is still the day of small things so far as Indian manu¬ 
factures are concerned, these are making considerable progress. Here is the rec¬ 
ord of the growth of the cotton weaving and spinning during the past four years. 



Year ending March— • 

1883. 

1878. 

Number of mills.. 

62 
14,882 
1,583,782 
52,763 

53 
10,533 
1, 2S9, 760 
Not stated. 

Number of looms. 

Number of spindles. 

Number of persons employed. 



Now, moreover, a new cotton-mill is about to be established at Bangalore 
another at Bodnera, in Berar, and eight more at Bombay, and it is therefore, Mr. 
O’Conor thinks, to be expected that at the end of this year there will be at least 
seventy-two mills at work in India, with about 19,000 looms and little less than 
one and three-quarter million spindles, and employing about 58,(XX) operatives. 
Now, also, the mills in the north of India are competing with us in the supply 
of woolen goods of the coarser qualities. In the manufacture of jute goods also 
an increasing business is being done, the number of gunny bags exported last 
year being 60,738,000, as compared with 42,073,000 in the previous year, there 
being also a very large increase in the exports of gunny cloths. So prosperous, 
indeed, is this branch of manufacture that several mills are being extended and 
new ones erected, and it is expected that 1,500 additional looms will be in oper- 
































29 



ation next year. Then the bootmaking industry, Mr. O’Conor reports, has taken 
a large development; though as yet it does not interfere with the import trade, 
as it is confined to a cheaper class of goods. Of beer, the Indian breweries pro¬ 
duced last year 2,514,000 gallons, of which the Government took 1,700,000 gallons 
for the supply of the army, and now the Indian is supplanting to a considera¬ 
ble extent the English beer. And as to other industries, Mr. O’Conor writes 
that “ the output o^coal is increasing, and new fields of great capacity and good 
quality are being opened out; that the manufacture of iron is being carried on, 
and there is some prospect of its being taken up and carried out on a large scale, 
with that of steel, by English capitalists; that the manufacture of paper has 
taken a new and good departure; while that of leather has largely developed, 
and that in various other directions India is beginning to supply her own 
wants.” 

THE world’s wheat MARKET. 

These papers refer only to the interference of India’s cheaper goods 
with the manufacturers of England; but here is matter of interest to 
American wheat-growers. It is a paragraph from the Eailway News, 
which was copied into the Manchester Examiner and Times for March 
27, 1884: 

Referring to the great development of wheat exports from India since 1879, the 
Railway News says in 1879 the wheat exported from India was 1,044,000 hun¬ 
dredweights, of the value of £514,000, while in 1882 the exports increased to 
19,863,000 hundredweights, and their value to £8,604,080. In the current year 
this quantity will proably be largely exceeded. It is a significant fact, and one 
which should not be lost sight of in estimating the value of railway enterprise 
in India, that, concurrently with a scale of rates regarded in some quarters as 
ruinous and disastrous, the East Indian Railway is now paying 8 per cent, upon 
its capital—largely increased as it was by the bonus paid to the shareholders on 
the state exercising its right of purchase—of £38,000,000. 

This paragraph, Mr. Chairman, tempts me to recur to my opening 
remark, and ask our wheat-growers whether it may not be true not only 
of manufactures but of their special agricultural industry that the 
power of production has outrun the capacity of the people to consume. 
To settle this question properly in their own minds they must not only 
consider our own undeveloped capacity and that of the Saskatchewan 
Valley and other wheat-fields of the new Northwest, but that of India, 
and far more potential for evil to us than India, the great wheat-growing 
prairies of Southern Russia. The rapidly declining price of wheat and 
the reduced export demand for it indicates the possibility of what po¬ 
litical economists call a glut in the market, but which, in nine cases 
out of ten, philosophic'inquiry proves to be evidence of a want of abil¬ 
ity on the part of the people to purchase the amount of commodities 
they usually consume. The market may be overstocked with a partic¬ 
ular article, but can not be glutted \.ith everything that man wants 


30 


while great masses of people suffer from the lack of ability to supply 
their most imperative wants. The future of the wheat market may in 
my judgment be discussed as an exceptional article with which the 
world’s markets may be overstocked while the ruling rates of wages 
prevail. • 

The abandonment of the protective system even to the destruction of 
particular manufacturing industries by which we have already excluded 
the manufacture of quinine, tin plates, wire rods, cotton-ties, and hoop- 
iron cut to lengths, which latter articles consume hundreds of thousands 
of tons of raw iron annually, has wrought two evil effects upon the Amer¬ 
ican formers’ interests. 

American laborers and their families feed on American grain and pro¬ 
visions, but the Germans, who are henceforth to manufacture our qui¬ 
nine, and the laborers of whatever continental country who are to produce 
our supply of cotton-ties, hoop-iron cut to lengths, wire rods, and tin 
plates, together with the hundreds of thousands of tons of iron they will 
consume annually will be provided with cheaper food from other lands. 

This is one effect of even partial free trade upon the interests of farmers. 
The other is that the men we have banished from the mine, furnace, and 
factory will find their way to fresh farms to increase the production of 
wheat of which the supply is already superabundant. The primary want 
of the American farmer is a quick and remunerative home market. When 
our mills, forges, furnaces, and factories were busy and our operatives 
were well paid we consumed nine-tenths of all the cereals we could grow, 
but with idleness prevailing in industrial centers, with the reduction of 
wages and the power to consume, and with the expulsion of great branches 
of industry from the country, we can not look to an insrease in the home 
demand or the maintenance of past prices for wheat. 

I have said that our wheat-growers are in more danger from Russia 
than from India, and this is true. Southern Russia is one immense 
body of prairie land, as fertile as and in all respects resembling the 
rich wheat fields of Illinois. The aggregate of Russia’s production of 
wheat for export has hitherto been limited by the want of agricultural 
machinery, railroads leading to available seaports, and a system of ele¬ 
vators. When these improvements shall be introduced in connection 
with the little better than Indian wages that are paid to Russian peasants, 
the foreign market for grain produced on our high-priced land, and at 


7 


r- \ 

31 

from one to two thousand miles from ports of shipment, will not pay 
the cost of production and transportation. 

But it will be asked, is there danger of the establishment of such 
means of competition? In reply to this question I beg leave to tell 
gentlemen that the Russian Government has been and is again in nego¬ 
tiation with American parties to establish in the heart of this greal 
wheat-growing country factories for the production of agricultural im¬ 
plements, to undertake the construction of railroads over the level sur¬ 
face of this prairie land, and of systems of elevators at convenient points 
along the railroads and in the shipping ports to which they will lead. 

I am no prophet of evil, no Cassandra, and have not risen to say to our 
farmers that this overwhelming competition is their inevitable and im¬ 
mediate fate; my mission is now, as it has been for all the years of my 
mature life, to avert, if wise counsels can do it, such disaster to any por¬ 
tion of the American people. Observation and the privilege of many 
years of intimate intercourse with Henry C. Carey have taught me that 
identity of interests among the people of a great country abundantly 
supplied with multifarious native material is created and maintained 
by the diversification of employments; that when manufactures prosper 
the farmer finds a ready market for his productions, from the smallest 
that reward the care of his wife or children to the great crops, such as 
corn, wheat, cotton, and tobacco; and that his prosperity reacts upon 
his countrymen who are engaged in producing wares and fabrics for his 
use. The highest degree of general prosperity is only attained by the 
promotion by each class of the prosperity of all other classes. 

If he will accept and apply broad truths like these the American 
farmer is in no danger of a glut in the market for the growth of his . 
fields; he, too, can diversify his productions, and in doing so can secure 
the market afforded by more than 55,000,000 of energetic people, among 
whom pernicious anaemia and kindred diseases are unknown—the mar¬ 
ket of 55,000,000 of people who, unlike the ryot of India who raises 
wheat but lives on rice and knows not the taste of animal food, eat meat 
daily, make daily use of tea and coffee, and are free consumers of sugar. 
Yes; and herein the wheat-grower may find a cu>'<^ for his apprehension. 
For sugar and sirup we now pay foreigners more than $100,000,000 a 
year, every dollar of which will in a few years, if our farmers be but 
true to themselves, go into their pockets, together with those of the pro- 




32 


prietors of corn and sorghum mills and sugar refineries, around which 
industrial villages will cluster in every part of our farming land on 
which Indian corn will ripen. In making this assertion I am not draw¬ 
ing upon imagination. That clear, crystallized sugar can be profitably 
produced in merchantable quantities from com is demonstrated beyond 
a doubt; and that corn sugar is a much less profitable growth and man¬ 
ufacture than is sugar irom sorghum is also a fact demonstrated and 
established beyond all peradventure. 

Our farmers, therefore, need not fear the competition of low wages 
in the wheat fields of India and Eussia. Wheat-culture exhausts the 
.3oil. The wheat we export beyond the sea carries with it the vital prin¬ 
ciples of the farm on which it was raised, which do not return to en¬ 
rich the producers’ acres as they do when consumed in industrial villages 
or large cities near to where it was grown. With sugar-yielding plants 
it is otherwise; they are green plants, and give to the soil the nutriment 
they absorb from the atmosphere. Wherever corn will ripen sorghum 
can be produced in perfection, and the value of the seed alone of this 
plant is found to be equal to the cost of growing and housing the entire 
crop. Not only does this seed furnish nutriment to swine and horned 
cattle, but historians and travelers give us abundant assurance that in 
the past more people have lived on sorghum seed than have been sus¬ 
tained by wheat. Myriads of the people of the interior of Africa and 
Asia, from which dark regions we are but now receiving supplies of 
richer varieties of the sorghum plant than we have yet grown, have for 
centuries found in its seed food-supply equal to that the Caucasian races 
have found in wheat. 

It is, however, not from the seed, but the stock of the plant that simp 
and sugar are extracted, and this is not taken until fodder, as efficient 
and adequate in supply as is yielded by corn, has been stripped from it; 
and after having yielded its luscious juice, the stock leaves a residuum or 
bagasse rich in value as material from which to manufacture paper or, 
when properly dried, as fuel for culinary or other purposes. In sober truth 
it may be said that there is no industry practiced by our farmers on a 
large scale east of that greater Sicily, our marvelously endowed Cali¬ 
fornia, which gives the farmer such returns as may be earned by him 
who will devote his acres, under his own intelligent supervision, to the 
production of sorghum for a neighboring sugar-mill; but if the farmer 


33 


wishes to maintain the value of his acres, his implements, and his 
labor he must not run mad in pursuit of the cheap and nasty or hope 
to ensure happy days to his posterity by inflicting the effects of the 
dismal science upon the manufacturing laborers of his country. Let 
him above all things require his Representative to stand by the duties 
which protect those of his countrymen who are already engaged in the 
production of sugar and sirup, whether from cane, corn, or sorghum. 

Thus may the wheat-grower avert the dangers which threaten his in¬ 
terests. But what is to be done to protect our artisans and laborers from 
degradation such as the American traveler finds in foreign lands—deg¬ 
radation which is threatening the peace of every transatlantic country 
and the edicts of whose victims banded in secret societies, whether of 
nihilists, socialists, communists, land-leaguers, or what not, are the pre¬ 
monitory mutteringsof a convulsion which in its violence will probably 
exceed that of “ ’93,” and which good men may hope will put the fu¬ 
ture of humanity on a foundation of j ustice such as no government or 
national life now illustrates ? How, I ask again, shall we protect and de¬ 
fend the homes, the wives, and the children of our laborers from such 
degradation as the same class suffer in other lands? How secure such 
rewards to labor as will sustain our public schools and provide reason¬ 
able education for all our children; how protect American women from 
being employed asihaveseen women in Austria, Germany, Switzerland, 
the Netherlands, France, England, and Scotland, as beasts of burden in 
the field and laborers at merely nominal wages in attendance upon men 
who do skilled work in the construction of great buildings, in forges, 
founderies, rolling-mills, glass-works, and coal, iron, or other mines? If 
our Republic is to live, the wives of our men and the mothers of our 
children must be protected at whatever cost of economic abstractions 
against such degradation as this. [Applause.] One step in this direc¬ 
tion should be taken at once. We should forthwith prohibit the im¬ 
portation of cheap labor as we do that of cheap commodities, and send 
back to the country from which they have been shipped men or women 
who have signed contracts in foreign lands or on shipboard to work at 
lower than prevailing American wages. [Renewed applause.] This 
measure, though an important one, is but a palliative in a matter in 
which radical and enduring relief is demanded. 

Having pondered the question during the watches of many a night 
Ke-3 



34 


and sought counsel from the best thinkers to whose voices or volumes 
I have had access, I can point to but two means by which our laboring 
classes can be saved from justifiable discontent by having the oppor¬ 
tunity to work at living wages in every month of the year. They are, 
first to secure to productive labor a larger proportion of the joint pro¬ 
duction of labor and capital; and second, to make such statutory pro- 
visioi^ for the Territories and the District of Columbia and to appeal to 
the Legislatures of the several States also to provide by law that 
eight hours or less shall be the longest period in any one day that man 
or machinery may move in productive employment. [Great applause. ] 

How these vital changes are to be accomplished I do not see. In other 
lands the effort will be made through blood and carnage. Here, where 
the laborer’s vote is of as much weight as that of the millionaire, the 
revolution, for such it will be, will doubtless come peaceably, but its 
coming is inevitable, and this fact should be forever in the contempla¬ 
tion of the legislator. I see but one way through which we can reach 
this great result; it is, if need be, to realize the wish of Jefferson, not by 
putting a sea of fire between us and other manufacturing countries, but 
by enacting a tariff that will secure our home market to our producers 
so entirely that manufacturers may afford to run their machinery eight 
hours and pay those who attend it a day’s work for this amount of labor. 

It is for our country and our countrymen and not for mankind we leg¬ 
islate. Our country is unlike any other. It is in its breadth and the 
infinite variety of its resources sufficient unto itself, and could live if its 
people imported nothing but what would be exchanged for that which 
would be surplus within our limits. Our Government is also unlike any 
other. It is not a monarchy; it is not a despotism; it is not an oligarchy; 
but is a free democratic Eepublic, of which every human being born 
within its limits is a citizen, entitled to the rights of a free man, and 
with the duty laid upon him of assisting in the maintenance of the per¬ 
petuity of a government which can live only so long as virtue, intelli¬ 
gence, and index)endence characterize its citizens. May that Govern¬ 
ment be immortal. But, friends and countrymen, this it can not be if 
we are to enter it in the unholy race Britain is making with barbarous 
nations for the “cheap and nasty ” under the terrible teachings of the 
‘ ‘ dismal science. ’ ’ [Great and continued applause. ] 


O 


Pensions to Soldiers and Sailors of the Mexican War 


SPEECH 


OF 

HON. JOHN J. KLEINER, 

OF INDIANA, 

In the House of Kepresentatives, 

Friday, March 7, 1884. 


The House having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5667) granting pensions 
to the soldiers and sailors of the Mexican war— 

Mr. KLEINER said: 

Mr. Speaker: In advocating the passage of this bill I am prompted 
by a desire to do justice to men now old and decrepid with age, but 
who nearly forty years ago responded at the call of their country, in¬ 
vaded a malarious and hostile country, suffered as men rarely suffer, 
hut who, after a service of less than two years, returned to their homes 
covered with glory, the price of their valor adding new luster to the 
American name. I am also prompted to support this measure because 
the State I in part represent has charged this duty upon its Representa¬ 
tives in Congress. Nor is Indiana alone. Almost every State in the 
Union has sent similar instructions to its members of Congress at dif¬ 
ferent times. 

I am in favor of this bill because it meets with the approval of a gen¬ 
erous and patriotic constituency, many of whom were participants in that 
war as well as in the Indian wars that preceded it. Although confined 
now in my remarks to the main question under consideration, I cannot 
refrain from expressing my sincere regret that the old worn-out and 
gray-haired octogenarians of the Black Hawk and Florida wars were 
not included under its benefits. In my opinion justice and human¬ 
ity demand that the latter soldiers shall be duly remembered by this 
great nation, and I am ready even now to include them in this bill, thus 
proving that republics are not always ungrateful, but, on the contrary, 
remember with gratitude their heroic defenders. 

Mr. Speaker, it has been charged that the Indian war in Florida in 
1836 was not dignified by anything more than a ‘ ‘ disturbance ’ ’ caused by 
runaway negroes and their captors. If this be the opinion of any con¬ 
siderable number of gentlemen on this floor, I respectfully ask them to 
read again the history of that war. 

Major Dade and his gallant little army were troops of the United 
States carrying the flag of their country. All but two men were am- 




bushed and slaughtered by their savage foes. For months the war- 
whoop echoed around the desolate homes of the peaceful settler; and I 
appeal in behalf of the descendants of the victims of this savagery that 
their names shall not be stigmatized as disturbers of the peace. I 
appeal in behalf of and to the memory of the dead who fell in the de¬ 
fense of their homes while defending their wives and little ones from 
the tomahawk and scalping-knife of the savage. I appeal in behalf of 
the memory of the patriotic dead who went to their relief and fell vic¬ 
tims while rendering succor, and who now sleep in unknown and un¬ 
adorned graves among swamps and everglades. I appeal in behalf of 
the living, only a remnant of whom are lel’t among us, and to the sense 
of justice of the American Congress, to pension this little band of men— 
men who at the first call went to repel the assaults of a treacherous 
and murderous foe, before whose brutality neither age or sex escaped. 

We should grant a pension to these men in order to conform to un¬ 
broken precedents, with a view of giving encouragement to the young 
men now coming on the stage and upon whom we must depend to fight 
our battles in the future. When Jackson cried ‘ ‘ To arms! ’ ’ men from 
every hill and valley responded, and with these patriotic, poorly clad 
and poorly armed American volunteers he completely routed and over¬ 
whelmed the combined forces of the British at New Orleans. I men¬ 
tion this as an instance where undisciplined valor was more than a match 
for pomp and ceremonious display, and which resulted in achieving a 
triumph for the plain volunteer that in its resul ts has no parallel in 
ancient or modern times. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, such achievements must not be expected in the 
future if partisanship and ingratitude combine to push the old heroes 
that left us this great inheritance through the open doors of the poor- 
house into a pauper’s grave. Can we afford to ignore the appeals for 
justice at the hands of that gallant little army, now bent, gray, and 
wrinkled with age? Can we afford to drive from our doors the men 
who at the price of their lives and future happiness gave us an empire, 
with millions of treasure, and all that which makes us the most power¬ 
ful nation on the earth ? 

I am not alarmed at the future of this country provided the soldier 
whose valor won it and whose fidelity maintained it is duly recog¬ 
nized by our law-making powers. Refuse that even-handed justice to 
the old veteran now, and your Commander-in-Chief may cry in vain for 
volunteers in time of danger; but when the nation is in peril he will 
drag from their homes a disorderly, sullen, and mutinous army of con¬ 
scripts, whose fighting qualities would be discounted by the hireling 
Hessians or the BavShi Bazouks. It is now fifty-two years since the 
close of the Black Hawk war, and the average age of these old soldiers 
is over 80 years. But a few hundred remain alive to-day. A few thou¬ 
sand dollars distributed among them now would remind them of the 
nation’s remembrance and smooth their way to the already yawning 
grave. 

The soldiers of the Florida war now average over 78 years of age. 
Death and disease is thinning their ranks rapidly, and if we delay there 
will soon be none left upon whom to bestow our tardy offer of justice. 
If this House would listen to my appeal every soldier herein mentioned 
would receive a pension before to-day’s sun had sunk to rest. 

The veterans of the Mexican war now average 63 years. They are 
quite as old as were the soldiers of the Revolutionary war when Con¬ 
gress gave them a gratuitous pension for life. The same rule was ap- 


3 


plied to those who served in the war of 1812. Thus unbroken prece¬ 
dents have been established granting gratuitous pensions after a lapse 
of about thirty-live to forty years after the wars in which the soldiers 
had served had expired. 

Congress did this when the country was poor, compared with its present 
opulent condition. Shall this Congress appear less patriotic or grateful 
than those that preceded it? I must earnestly hope not. If we but 
listen to the people we will pass this bill, for with but few exceptions 
every member on this floor stands instructed by his State that sent him 
here to vote to pension the old Mexican veteran. 

Mr. Speaker, it may sound a little singular when I state that nearly 
one-third of this House is composed of men who were either unborn or 
in their cradles when the first call for volunteers to serve in the Mexi¬ 
can war was flrst proclaimed. The beneficiaries left their homes and 
went down into a hot, malarial climate, into a foreign land, to conquer 
a fierce and semi-barbarous foe. Among the great-hearted people where I- 
live the little child whose tender years have not yet enabled it to read 
the martial history of its country is taught to bow low when the vet¬ 
eran warrior of the Mexican war passes by. On Decoration Day, in 
the sunny month of 'lay, when all the people wend their way to the 
cemeteries made sacred by the ashes of the patriot dead, the graves of 
the heroes who conquered in Mexico are carefully sought, while men, 
women, and children enwreath them with the choicest of nature’s 
immortelles. 

Those of us who witnessed their last national reunion, in this city 
last December, were pained to see so few assembled. On that occasion 
a last grand rally was expected, and it was hoped by the projectors that 
all parts of the Union would be represented. But the reasons given 
why so few gathered here was soon generally known. Those who re¬ 
mained away proclaimed the nation’s shame by the declaration that 
they were too poor, while others came through the charity of friends. 
Those who sent messages to their comrades excusing their absence in 
nearly every instance pleaded old age or poverty. 

The few who attempted a parade on the avenue in front of this Capi¬ 
tol certainly excited pity if not admiration. Yet this was all that re¬ 
mained of that magnificent army whose story is sung throughout the 
land, that conquered an empire under Scott and Taylor and shed im¬ 
perishable luster on the American name. This little band of decrepit 
and gray-haired men was all that was left to tell the story of their 
triumphs in Mexico. 

But the opponents of this bill are bold in their declarations that the 
vast domain acquired by reason of the war with Mexico was really made 
by purchase. That the United States by the treaty made subsequent 
to the capitulation of the City of Mexico stipulated $25,000,000 as the 
price for an empire greater than that comprising all of the States of the 
Union at the time. Well, all I can say to that is that all of Arizona, 
New Mexico, California, Utah, parts of Colorado and Wyoming, nearly 
a million square miles, worth $2,000,000,000 at Government prices, 
could not have been bought had not Ringgold, Clay, Butler, Armstrong, 
Graham, McKee, Walker, Ayres, McIntosh, Merrill, Baxter, Drumb, 
Gannt, Howell, Smith, Gillespie, and Morange, in addition to more than 
20,000 brave men, first laid down their lives in its acquirement. Pur¬ 
chased, yes, but not with money, but by the shedding of the best young 
blood of the nation; and it is in my opinion a calumny on the heroic 
dead to make such statements. 


4 


Since Congress has committed the country to the granting of gratui¬ 
tous pensions I desire to see the brow of the Mexican warrior wreathed 
in the laurel chaplet while the oak decorates those of the heroes of 1776 
and 1812. By the side of the patriot who defended us at Lexington, 
Bunker Hill, Saratoga, Monmouth, Princeton, Brandywine, Eutaw, 
and the Cowpens, I place him who glorified his country at Vera Cruz, 
Buena Vista, Palo Alto, Molino Del Key, Resacca, Cerro Gordo, and 
Chapultepee. Objection is made to this bill in official quarters on ac¬ 
count of the cost. Therefore we should look at the economic side of 
this question also. From the best obtainable information now at hand 
the whole number of beneficiaries under this bill is placed at about 
10,000, who, if none died during the flight of time, would cost the na¬ 
tion, at $96 per year for each soldier or his surviving widow, $960,000 
per annum, or less than the average daily receipts of the National Treas¬ 
ury. Even if this sum was doubled or quadrupled we could wellaflbrd 
to pay it without crippling any department of the Government. 

Compare this insignificant payment with the acts of former Congresses 
when money and lands by the hundred millions were voted in aid of 
railroads and private corporations, thus depriving the actual settler or the 
soldier who desires to acquire a home on our frontier from the benefits of 
the public domain. It would have been far more just to have divided 
this land among the men through whose valor and intrepidity it was 
obtained. 

Mr. Speaker, the time to square accounts is now. The soldier is 
poor, while the Treasury is full to overflowing. Indeed, statesmen are 
debating on ways and means to relieve the vaults of the millions hoarded 
up and now idle. So "^e desire it distributed among the States, while 
others, equally since. , rvorits distribution as a national school fund, 
while in my humble judgment justice and the great intere,sts of the 
nation are best subserved by a fair and equitable distribution among the 
citizen soldiery, to whom we are indebted for all that we are as a great 
and powerful nation. 


O 


BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS. 




“The laborer is worthy of his hire/' 


SPEECH 


HON. JOHN J. KLEINER, 


IN THK 


xClu 
it 91 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


Saturday, April 19 , 1884 , 


WASHINGTON. 

1884 . 








SPEECH 


OF 

HON. JOHN J. KLEINEB. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
and having under consideration the bill (H, R, 1340) to establish and maintain 
a bureau of labor statistics— 

Mr. KLEINER said: 

Mr. Chairman: I see greater interest manifested here to-day upon 
this question than I have ever seen before upon any subject brought to 
the attention of the House. I am moreover convinced that if this 
Congress did less talking and more voting much valuable time would 
be saved and the bill under consideration would become a law at once 
and the cause of labor substantially advanced. 

The two things, Mr. Chairman, that puzzle me most are the dam¬ 
nable rules of the House and the “talking cranks.” These two are 
with us always. The latter are exposing their long ears, if nothing 
else, at all times and upon every occasion. The vast amount of infor¬ 
mation obtainable from them upon every conceivable subject is the 
only excuse for their toleration. One would suspect that the gentle¬ 
men whose lily white hands had performed every kind of manual la¬ 
bor, from childhood up to the day they broke into this Congress, ought 
to exempt them from exerting themselves during the remainder ot 
their natural lives, especially with their mouths. From this latter 
affliction may the good Lord deliver us hereafter, for the toiling mill¬ 
ions will gather neither relief nor information sought under this bill 
through their efforts. 

I have no use for pretenders either in or out of Congress, and as this 
bill has been carefully considered by the committee and unanimously 
reported to this House with a favorable recommendation I trust it will 
pass speedily. The information to be derived can not fail to be of ben¬ 
efit to the workman as well as the capitalist. It will, in my opinion, 
set at rest the conflicting opinions now held by the people of this coun¬ 
try respecting that vexed question, capital and labor, and its seemingly 
many divergent interests. Judging from the way in which this debate 
has been conducted, I believe that the remarks of many gentlemen are 
misdirected. To my mind the greatest curse that has afflicted and de¬ 
pressed the condition of the laboring man has been the present war 
tariff. 

Inasmuch as all taxes and burdens must be raised from the hand 
of the laborer, whether in the workshop or on the farm, it is clear to 
my mind why he should be poor to-day while his employer should 
roll in wealth long after the conditions that made the war tax neces- 
.sary have passed by. Workmen in this country can not be led to be¬ 
lieve in the equality of all men before the law while they are ground 







4 


down into peonage and servitude. They can not be made to respect 
the Constitution of a country that divides the people into a peasantry 
and a moneyed aristocracy. While one part of the people, and a small 
part at that, roll in wealth, erect palaces and costly homes, drive 
through the streets in costly turn-outs, with crests and heraldic insig¬ 
nia emblazoned on them, is it not a marvel that there is not more un¬ 
rest among the masses who produce all this by their skill and labor? 

You must remove this infamous tariff and stop paying tribute to a 
select few if you would solve the labor question. This country pos¬ 
sesses all the diversities of soil and climate to enable its people to com¬ 
pete with any other in the world. Why should we with 60,000,000 
people daily parade our poverty and fear of England with 20,000,000? 
Are we still so helpless and feeble that we must ask alms from infinitely 
weaker nations? Shame on such cowardly conduct. What a com¬ 
mentary we are, anyw^ay, on the heroes of the Revolution and our pa¬ 
triotic ancestors of 1812. Why, Mr. Chairman, this country has the dry 
rot like the dug-outs w^e call our Navy; strangled with infernal class 
legislation and dying from internal corruption; “dying as Rome died 
by its vices as it had formerly flourished by its virtues; dying because 
her wealth and her lands were legislated into the hands of the few, as 
ours w^ere, converting a race of freemen into a herd of serfs;” and here 
we stand watching for the forging of the chains that are to bind us. 
“Life, liberty, and the pureuit of happiness” was first proclaimed as 
the cardinal doctrine of our national faith. 

By that doctrine true manhood was held paramount to the claims of 
mere wealth. Yet to-day our whole land is honey-combed with monop¬ 
olies fostered by national legislation. Our money and our lands are 
thrown into their capacious cofiers, our lives, our franchises, and our lib¬ 
erties are all being rapidly transferred to their keeping. I tell you the 
land that will not be warned from the disasters and ruin of the Roman 
Empire, and the rise and fall of nations since the dawn of time, will speed¬ 
ily drop into decay. Stop the iniquity of giving the nation’s bounty to 
the rich while the poor among us are begging bread, and you will have 
solved the problem of this country’s greatness. 

The manutacturerof this country is shut out from the markets of the 
world, hence he must depend upon the home consumption. High tarift* 
has induced overproduction, and consequent stagnation. According to 
the census returns, our factories could produce twice as much as they 
now do; yet they are idle now nearly half the time. Give our indus¬ 
tries a chance at competition with the world, and with our cheap raw 
materials at our doors we could soon drive from active competition with 
us every nation on the earth. 

The protectionists keep telling us that they want a monopoly of the 
trade of America to insure good wages to the laborer. This has been 
the plea of the protectionists and the only one; yet they know that 
they have established agencies among the" pauper-labor countries in 
•order to supply this country with the same class of men they so much 
decry. 

The intelligent workmen of this land are beginning to wake up to 
the impositions practiced upon them, for they often rise up in the morn¬ 
ing and find themselves face to face with a ship-load of heathen mon¬ 
grels ready to displace them, or car-loads of convicts from our own 
penitentiaries. The protectionist asks that the workman’s product be 
protected against competition, but he scours the earth to find labor de¬ 
graded enough to compete with his own workmen. Thus, in order to 


o 


'Continue in employ he too must submit to a reduction in keeping with 
that of the convict and criminal as well as the imported hireling from 
the jungles of Asia and slums of other lands. 

I do not propose to overdraw this picture, for it is a well-known fact 
that in spite of their enormous profits and ability to pay fair wages, the 
protected manufacturers have uniformly paid the lowest wages, and to 
enable them to still more depress the Avage-worker they have established 
agencies in foreign countries through which they can supply their facto¬ 
ries with cheap workmen. I shall confine myself to the record and shall 
quote from Mr. Henry Sterne, United States consul in Hungary. Mr. 
Sterne, in his report to the State Department, under date of 1882, sub¬ 
mitted the following: 

1 have information that agents are managing the business a good deal in the 
manner ofthecooly trade, and that these immigrants are shipped to theUnited 
States about like so many cattle. 

Here are the words of our consul officially submitted for the infor¬ 
mation of Congress. Here we discover the agent of the philanthropic 
protectionist employer recruiting among the serfs of Hungary for pau¬ 
per labor with which to supply his factories, and this the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Php:lps] no doubt considers as one of the chief 
beauties of the protective system for New Jersey. For in the town of 
Malaga, N. J., the American workmen had to leave their homes in 
midwinter by order of the manager of a factory in order to make room 
for a cargo of pauper laborers fresh from the bogs of Belgium who were 
brought in to take their places. Yes; shipped here “like so many cat¬ 
tle.” 

It has been observed that in some of the largest factories of this 
country there were found, instead of intelligent American citizens, ig¬ 
norant and indifferent foreigners, who do not speak any language recog¬ 
nized in this country, and hence can not become informed as to the econ¬ 
omic conditions that exist here. These men were all under contract for 
a term of years at a rate less than standard Avages. The management 
• discourage the introduction of any general information, as in their ig¬ 
norance they were more tractable and obedient—would more readily 
submit to impositions such as would arouse the free American citizen 
into mutiny and open rebellion. 

But, Mr. Chairman, there are still other sources of information on this 
“slave-trade ” carried on by the protectionists in the interests of Amer¬ 
ican industry. 

Count Esterhazy, the Austrian consul to New York, established a 
bureau for the protection of Hungarian immigrants. In one of his re- 
.ports he says: 

There is no doubt that a contract system is being carried on, and I believe it 
has reached large proportions. Certain it is that great numbers of emigrants 
^are landed on these shores who are owned by capitalists. 

“Owned by capitalists”—by the men Avho hang around the halls of 
Congress and prate about their devotion to American labor. These are 
the Avords of the Count. 

What think the friends of the protectionist in this House who in the 
interest of their cause buy and sell men, women, and children tAventy 
years after the abolition of slavery in this country ? Greed and avarice 
combined have made our country a prey to the cupidity of man, and 
he has succeeded well in disgracing us in the eyes of all civilized na¬ 
tions. There can be but one object in this traffic, and that is to degrade 


6 


our Ameriain workmen and supplant them with cheap labor hired 
under contract abroad. 

The object of the protectionist is clear, and his profits are certain 
while home consumption is equal to his ability to supply. Since the 
supply is greater than the demand he desires to sell his wares abroad. 
But we have no ships and no commerce, and healthy competition is 
out of the question. So long as the protectionist can force his home 
customer to buy his wares at the high-tariff prices he is content. The 
foreigner, however, will buy where he can obtain his goods in open com¬ 
petition; hence to sell the American must sell below the tariff, while 
to the American farmer and laborer he sells above the tariff rates re¬ 
gardless of the fact that imported pauper labor made the goods sold. 

Under the war-tariff system the workman can not fail to grow poorer 
day by day as long as the labor market of the world holds out, and 
some pretext or another will be found to bring it here just as long as 
a premium is held out for it by our national policy. We might as well 
try and build a Chinese wall about this country and expect it to pros¬ 
per as to shut out our commodities from the markets of the world and 
expect to get rich by swapping pennies among ourselves. This peanut 
policy must stop or we will soon smother and stifle all individual effort. 
Our Government will be made a paternal one. Wealth will accumu¬ 
late and men will decay. Strong armies will become a necessity to pre¬ 
vent outbreaks in every part of the country. Here is a sample of what 
protection is doing for our people and for American workmen, for 
whose sole benefit we are told it is maintained. On July 11, 1883, the 
Window-glass Manufacturers’ Association held their meeting at Long 
Branch and adopted the following resolution; 

Resolved, That the treaipurer be authorized to pay a sum not exceeding $30 per 
man for each blower or gatherer brought over from Europe after August, 1883, 
provided the same be employed by some member of this association, and pro¬ 
vided that they are not workmen who have been in this country within the 
twelve months last passed. 

In this manner thousands of paupers are brought over from Europe 
on short notice at so much per head, and powerful corporations often . 
refuse to employ any other. The great continental lines of railways 
toward which the Government gave hundreds of millions in money and 
lands were all built with pauper labor, averaging not to exceed 28 cents 
per day for each man employed—filthy heathen, subsisting on rats and 
snakes, brought here by protectionists to compete with American labor. 
From gentlemen who testified before the committee I submit brief ex¬ 
tracts. Mr. S. V. Penderly, a master workman, says: 

These imported men show no disposition to become citizens. I have seen 
eight men and one woman living in a small house, without beds or furniture, 
sleeping on the floor. Their total expense for subsistence was $3 per month for 
each person. 

I have seen men engaged at Castle Garden and taken to Frostburg, Md., where 
they lived in a wooden bviilding, Avithout furniture, sleeping on bunks. This • 
building was fenced in to prevent the inmates from being communicated with 
by the people whose places they had taken. Their daily food was water and 
mush, with a small quantity of meat on Sunday. 

These men were fenced in to prevent them from obtaining any in¬ 
formation concerning the business of their oppressors. I commend them 
to the pitying care of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kelley], 
whose sympathy for the poor oppressed pig-iron makers has blinded him 
to the real cause of our national decay which he so much deplored. 

Mr. Bouilet, of Zanesville, Ohio, said he was hired by an agent at 
Antwerp with sixty others, who found upon arrival that they were to 


{ 


i 

work for 25 per cent, less than the regular rate. At Kent, Ohio, they 
contracted for three years upon condition that they would not associate 
with American workmen. Several men violated this part of the agree¬ 
ment and were arrested. When they arrived at Mansfield the few who 
could speak English were warned not to talk to any one. Their engage¬ 
ment was at from 30 to 50 per cent, below the regular rates. 

Most of these contracts are drawn waiving all the workman’s rights 
under the statutes of the States passed for the protection of labor, and 
to save him from the avarice and greed of the manufacturer. I could 
continue citing cases as they exist in almost every section of the coun- 
tiy. The intolerance of the bosses in Pennsylvania, however, has 
reached the top rung in the ladder. Mr. Barclay, who represents the 
mining region of Pennsylvania, testified before the committee. He says 
men and women are brought into the country under contract; there 
was an agency in New York and another in Pittsburgh who made a 
specialty of receiving this kind of labor. They were very desirable, and 
firms employed them because they were easily imposed upon. 

Mr. Barclay says he counted one day thirty-five women and children 
employed in forking coke and working about the ovens. The children 
were very poorly clad and of every age, ranging from 5 years upward. 
3'heir habits were disgusting in the extreme. They had no beds, but 
laid on the floors “heads and tails.” It is strange that the attention 
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kelley] was not arre.sted by 
this state of facts right at his door, for in his plaintive story the other 
day he rung the changes of distress and misery as it existed in England; 
yet not a single statement made by the gentleman compared in the hor¬ 
rors of detail to the state of facts that exist in his own home and in the 
State he represents on this floor. 

A yard-boss in Pennsylvania took thirty-seven men from a single 
house containing four small rooms. They had no beds, but lay on the 
floor. The little money they get they save to go back home on. When 
tliey get sick they go to the poor-house. They work for two-thirds the 
regular rates. The companies employing them compel them to buy 
goods at their stores, which are retailed to them at enormous profits. 
If they refuse to receive their pay in this way they are discharged, in 
sjiite of the statutes of the State of Pennsylvania Any attempt to 
organize against this oppression and tyranny on the part of the work¬ 
man is met by the employer black-listing the offender and refusing him 
work. , 

In the mines these ignorant people are employed at so much per ton. 
As they do not know what a ton is they are again overreached. The 
agencies that bring these people get so much per head for each one im¬ 
ported. These degraded people, who are brought here by the ship¬ 
load to compete with and lower the standard of American labor, will 
“ subsist on offal, they will eat mules and hogs killed or died from dis¬ 
eases.” 

No wonder protectionists are getting rich; but their riches are founded 
upon a ban kof sand, and I warn them now to desist, for their cause is 
doomed. An outraged and enslaved people will sooner or later break 
forth into open revolt. 

At Kent, Ohio, the imported men all work on Sundays, doubtless to 
make up for lost time, while the bosses go to church. At Muskingum 
the men work seventeen hours per day, and to enable them to eke out 
a miserable existence they cultivate their little gardens by the aid of 
lamps. Why, the African slave was a prince by the side of this new 


/ 


system of torturing mankind, for when sick his property value secured 
him decent attention at least. 

It is a strange fact, but it exists nevertheless, that these cries come 
chiefly from States and localities which have been held up by this na¬ 
tional bounty called tariff. Miseries that shame the conjectured 
tortures of hell are found right in the midst of the highly protected 
industries, showing conclusively that no part of the rich bounty granted 
by the Government is shared with the workman, but is invested in 
costly mansions, luxurious living, fine horses and turnouts, and ex¬ 
pensive tours abroad for the general gratification of the employer. For 
of the 32 and 67 per cent, profits which the poor man created he has 
now, like the Son of Man, not even a place whereon to lay his weary 
head. 


Trade-Dollar and the Silver Question. 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON. EDWARD S. LACEY, 

\» 

OF MYCHIGAN, 

In the House of Eepresentatives, 

Monday, March 31, 1884. • 


The House having under consideration the bill (H. R. 4976) for the retirement 
and recoinage of the trade-dollar— 

Mr. LACEY said: 

Mr. Speaker: Severe illness has prevented me from attending 
the sessions of this House during the past week, so that I had not the 
pleasure of hearing the discussion which took place last Thursday on 
this bill. I shall not detain the House very long, for I am still some¬ 
what indisposed. 

The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Bland] who has just addressed 
us did not confine himself to the discussion of the provisions of the bill 
before the House, but rather went into a consideration of the general 
question of the coinage of the Bland dollar, so called. I would first 
like to call the attention of the House to the bill under discussion and 
afterward reply to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Bland]. It is a 
bill for the purpose of retiring and redeeming and recoining the trade- 
dollar. 

THE TRADE-DOLLAR. 

The trade-dollar was authorized to be coined by the act of February 
12, 1873. Section 15 of that act reads as follows: 

Sec. 15. That the silver coins of the United States shall be a trade-dollar, a half- 
dollar,or fifty-cent piece, a quarter-dollar,or twenty-ftve-cent piece, a dime,or ten- 
cent piece; and the weight of the trade-dollar shall be four hundred and twenty 
grains troy; the weight of the half-dollar shall be twelve grams (grammes) and 
one-half of a gram (gramme); the quarter-dollar and the dime shall be, respect¬ 
ively, one-half and one-fifth of the weight of said half-dollar; and said coins shall 
be a legal tender at their nominal value for any amount not exceeding $5 in any 
one payment. 

These are all the silver coins which the laws of the United States then 
authorized. They were all made alike legal tender, and nothing ap¬ 
pears in the act which distinguishes in that respect the trade-dollar from 
any other silver coin of the United States. Something may have cropped 
out in the discussion at the time of its enactment which may have in- 






dicated that the trade-dollar was calculated and designed for circulation 
abroad, but certainly the law discovers nothing of the kind. 

Under this act, during the years 1874, 1875, and 18.76, 15,418,450 of 
the trade-dollars were coined. It is estimated that of that number two 
or three millions remained in this country and circulated among the 
people of the United States. At the time the coinage of the trade-dol¬ 
lar was authorized that coin was worth more than its nominal value in 
the money of account. In 1876 silver bullion had so depreciated that 
the trade-dollar was much below par, and then the Congress passed an 
act taking away from this coin its legal-tender quality, but not dis¬ 
turbing the legal-tender faculty of the other silver coins of the United 
States. After its legal-tender power had been removed, $20,540,910 
more Avere coined, and in 1878 its coinage was entirely done away with 
by law. 

It is now proposed that this silver coin of the United States, which 
was authorized by an act of Congress*and was made a legal tender as 
all other silver coins were, shall be redeemed; that it shall not be per¬ 
mitted to circulate among the people and be a means of deceiving the 
ignorant and the unwary. This bill provides that this trade-dollar shall 
be received for all Government dues, that it shall be redeemed by the 
Treasurer and all the assistant treasurers of the United States, and 
that when so received for dues, or so redeemed, it shall be recoined into 
the standard silver dollar, and that the trade-dollars shall, when re¬ 
ceived at the coinage mints, be applied upon and counted as part of the 
monthly purchase of silver bullion. 

WHAT WILL PREVENT LARGE IMPORTATIONS. 

The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Calkins] asks what will prevent 
the trade-dollars now held abroad from being reshipped to the United 
States, and why are not chopped or defaced coin excluded? I would 
say that of the 35,959,360 trade-dollars originally coined there were 
exported up to the 1st day of November, 1878, $25,703,950, and there 
were taken abroad by individuals, and not passed through the custom¬ 
house, an estimated amount of $5,000,000, leaving in the United States 
on the 1st day of November, 1878, 5,255,410 of these trade-dollars. 
For the years 1878 and 1879 the importation of this coin is estimated 
by the best authorities at $2,000,000. The net imports, according 
to official figures, during the year 1879-’80 Avere 739,679; and during 
the year 1880-’81, 92,377. There were exported in 1881-’82 3,600 of 
these dollars, and in 1882-’83 1,000 of them; leaving noAV in the United 
States, according to these figures, 8,082,866 trade-dollars. 

You will notice that in this computation nothing is deducted for those 
which may have been melted doA\m, or Avhich may haA^e been used in 
the arts and manufactures; so that these figures can not be exceeded, 
while the amount actually in the country may prove to be considerably 
less. We therefore say that we are Avithin bounds Avhen Ave claim that 
the number of these trade-dollars to be retired can not noAV exceed 
$ 8 , 000 , 000 . 

The figures Avhich I have given AAuth regard to the exportation and 
importation of trade-dollars indicate that Ave hav^e not imported any 
since 1881. For three years none have been imported, notwithstanding 
the fact that from July, 1879, to July, 1883, they Avere at all times Avorth 
in New York 99 cents, the price paid there by the bullion brokers. Let 
me repeat, that from July, 1879, soon after the legal-tender quality of 
this coin Avas taken aAvay, down to July 1, 1883, there was never a time 
when these trade-dollars would not command in Ncav York 99 cents on 




3 


the dollar. Now, if there were any abroad which were not defaced and 
mutilated- 

Mr, HERBERT. Does the gentleman mean to say that the market 
price of the trade-dollars was 99 cents? 

Mr. LACEY. It was up to July 1, 1883; since that time there has 
been a fluctuation. I was about to say that 99 cents having been the 
price paid for these trade-dollars in New York city from July, 1879, to 
July 1,1883, if there had been any of these dollars abroad which could 
have been shipped to this country and sold they would have come here 
prior to that time. What are the facts ? Instead of these coins com¬ 
ing to this country, where they could have been sold for 99 cents, we 
And that during the last two years, 1881-’82 and 1882-’83, there was 
an actual exportation instead of an importation. The flow of these 
dollars from the east to America stopped two or three years ago, and we 
are now shipping them abroad. This the committee take as a demon¬ 
stration that the recoinage of these dollars into standard dollars will 
not bring in any from abroad. 

DEFACED COIN EXCLUDED. 

It is reported that of those which went abroad to India and China 
over twenty millions went into the melting-pot, having been used as 
bullion at the mint in Calcutta. Those which have not already been 
melted down in those countries are undoubtedly chopped, marked, or 
otherwise defaced, and those so defaced we claim are excluded from the 
operations of this bill by the provisions of existing laws. 

WHY NOT CONFER THE LEGAL-TENDER QUALITY? 

The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Calkins] further asks, “What 
would be gained by having these trade-dollars recoined ? And why not 
simply make them a legal tender?” There are two objections to that 
course. In the first place, it would be unwise in the present condition 
of the monetary affairs of this country and of the whole world to confer 
the full legal-tender faculty upon the trade-dollars now in the United 
States, and thus add instantaneously, by a stroke of the pen, as it were, 
$8,000,000 to the already dangerously large volume of full legal-tender 
silver, thereby precipitating the calamity which we believe to be im¬ 
pending and which wise statesmanship should strive to avert. 

The second objection is that we would then have two legal-tender 
silver dollars in circulation of different sizes, of different weight, and 
bearing different devices, the one worth perhaps 87 cents in money of 
account, and the other 89 cents as silver is quoted to-day. We can 
not believe that this House is prepared to introduce into our coinage 
system such an anomaly, and one so confusing and unintelligible to the 
class of people who will chiefly use this class of coin, especially when 
uniformity can be secured without loss. 

THE TRADE-DOLLAR DISCREDITED. 

I have stated that up to the 1st of July, 1883, the trade-dollar was 
worth 99 cents in the city of New York. At that time a concerted 
movement was made against this dollar; an agreement seems to have 
been made on all hands to discredit it. Hence it dropped to its bullion 
value substantially. During July, 1883, its value in New York was 
86 to 87 cents; in August, 87 to 88 cents; in KSeptember, 88 to 89 cents. 

Mr. BRUMM. Will the gentleman be kind enough to tell us by 
whom this ‘ ‘ agreement ’ ’ was made—who agreed to discredit this dol¬ 
lar? 

Mr. LACEY. I am not able to do that. 


K 



4 


Mr. BRUMM. Was it not the money-changers and brokers and 
bankers who did it ? 

Mr. LACEY. My understanding of that matter is precisely this: 
that it had been the custom oi certain manufacturers to go to New York 
and elsewhere and buy these trade-dollars at a discount, take them out 
to the manufacturing and mining towns, especially in Pennsylvania, and 
pay them out at par to the miners and laborers and artisans; that at 
the date I have named, the 1st of July, 1883, somebody had come to the 
conclusion that this thing had’ gone on long enough, that these people 
were not to be cheated and defrauded in that way any longer. 

Mr. BRUMM. Who were those who came to that conclusion? 

Mr. LACEY. I can not say. I have not the information. I pre¬ 
sume it was the miners and'artisans and laborers who agreed to take 
this stand because they were the persons who had been systematically 
swindled by these operations, and who will continue to be swindled in 
the same way just so long as this coin, the mintage of the United States 
with the size and appearance of a dollar, bearing the statement that it 
is a dollar, is allowed to float about the country. 

But thus this dollar has passed into the hands of laborers, miners, 
and other classes of employes. In some places these men have been 
able to use these dollars for purposes of trade; in others not. In my 
own portion of the country a large quantity of this coinage is floating 
about in the hands of farmers, laborers, and others, who can not pay it 
out at par, and who therefore must take it to the broker. The broker 
can not pay out these dollars, and consequently buys them at such a 
discount as will permit, without loss, his keeping them on hand for a 
few days, or weeks, or months, until he has a sutiicient quantity to be 
profitably shipped to New York to be sold. The price paid in different 
parts of the country at the period I speak of ranged all the way from 
85 to 95 cents on the dollar. 

Mr. MILLS. Will the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Lacey] yield 
for a motion to adjourn? He will have the floor when the House takes 
up this subject again. 

Mr. LACEY. I prefer to finish my remarks to-night; I do not care 
to occupy much more time. But, Mr. Speaker, I will inquire whether 
if I yield for a motion to adjourn this bill will come up after the morn¬ 
ing hour to-morrow, or will it be subject to the question of considera¬ 
tion? 

The SPEAKER. This bill will be the unfinished business after the 
morning hour to-morrow; but it will be in order then, as it was to-day, 
to make a motion to go into Committee of the Whole for the purpose 
of considering appropriation bills. 

Mr. LACEY. I prefer, then, to go on to-night. 

IT SHOULD BE RETIRED. 

Mr. Speaker, I think upon all accounts it is the duty of this House 
to pass this bill providing for the retiring and recoining of this trade- 
dollar. As a question of honesty this House can not afford to defeat 
this bill. So long as this discredited coin floats about the country so 
long will it be used as a means of cheating and defrauding the ignorant 
and unwary who can be so easily deceived by what appears to be and 
what once was a genuine legal-tender dollar of the United States. 

I will not attempt to go on further with those provisions contained 
in the first three sections of the bill, but will notice the third question 
which the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Calkins] propounded. 


5 


IS IT PROPOSED TO STOP COIXING THE BLAND DOLLAR? 

‘ ‘ hat is the purpose of the fourth section ? Is it to stop the coinage 
of the standard dollar ? ’ ’ Mr. Speaker, that brings me to the discussion 
of the question which was so thoroughly traversed hy the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Bland]. That gentleman objects to the fourth 
section of this bill, and proposes to strike it out because he says it will 
delay the coinage of the standard dollar. He says it will prevent the 
purchase of bullion by the Government for four, five, or six months. I 
am willing to concede that the effect of the fourth section will be to, 
in a greater or less degree and for a short time, interfere with the monthly 
purchase of bullion. That brings us to the direct question whether we 
prefer that those who own silver bullion should wait two, three, four, 
or five months for a market, or whether it shall be those who hold these 
trade-dollars, the tradesman, the artisan, the laborer, the miner, and 
the mechanic. The latter have held these trade-dollars for eight years, 
while these bullion-men have had the benefit of a market created and 
sustained by the enforced monthly purchases by the Treasurer of the 
United States by virtue of the Bland law, and at the expense of other 
producers equally worthy of Government aid. 

Mr. BLAND. Will the gentleman allow me? 

Mr. LACEY. Certainly. 

Mr. BLAND. Would you vote to make the trade-dollar a legal ten¬ 
der and let it go right on? 

Mr. LACEY. 1 would not. 

Mr. BLAND. That is the difference between you and me. 

Mr. LACEY. Yes, that is the difference. You are in favor of in¬ 
flation. . 

Mr. BLAND. The gentleman stated that it was a question whether 
the holders of trade-dollars should succeed and others should wait. 

Mr. LACEY. The holders of trade-dollars will not wait under the 
fourth section. I will reply to your question. The gentleman says 
that by making them a legal tender the holder of the trade-dollar will 
not have to wait. While I am in favor of protecting the holder of the 
trade-dollar, while I am in favor of doing everything proper to make a 
market for the producer of silver bullion, I can not afford to do it at 
too great a cost. The question as to whether silver shall continue in¬ 
definitely to be coined as a full legal tender in this country, whether 
there shall be free coinage of silver in this country, is one we should 
meet now. It is upon us; it is of great importance, and we ought to 
be willing to give some little time to hearing it discussed in this House. 

The gentleman from Missouri says that he is willing to make these 
dollars a legal tender. That would add to our present enforced yearly 
coinage of 28,000,000 an additional eight or ten millions more of Bland 
dollars. I am not willing to vote for that. 

If this fourth section should be stricken out, and if these trade-dol¬ 
lars which are retired should not be applied on the monthly purchase 
of bullion, I should be obliged to vote against the bill because I think 
the duty I owe to the great interests thus placed in jeopardy would 
be paramount, and I should better serve the poor man and laborer by 
voting against a measure which is destined to lead us by accelerating 
speed to a debased and depreciated currency, which always falls with 
direst force upon the wage classes. 

THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE SILVER QUESTION. 

What is the condition of the silver question in the world to-day? 


6 


The gentleman from Missouri demands free coinage of the Bland dol¬ 
lars of 4122 grains, worth 87 cents in the market. I ask that gentle¬ 
man if there is a civilized nation on the face of the earth to-day that 
is coining silver except for subsidiary purposes? There are only two 
places in the world, to wit, Mexico and India, where there is free coin¬ 
age of silver to-day. The great powers of Europe are limiting their 
coinage of silver to the amounts necessary for subsidiary purposes. And 
the great tendency among European nations is toward monometallism 
or a single gold standard, with silver as a temporary or subsidiary 
accompaniment. 

AN INTERNATIONAL, RATIO AND FREE COINAGE. 

Now I say to the gentleman from Missouri if an arrangement can be 
brought about between the great powers of Europe and the United 
States whereby a common ratio can be established between gold and 
silver with free coinage of both metals, I am for it with all my heart. 
But I ask whether there is any probability that sucTi an agreement can 
at present be secured ? I point the gentleman to the three conferences 
which have been held upon the subject within the last few years, be¬ 
ginning with the conference of 1867. What were the results of these 
conferences ? 

Mr. BLAND. Let me interrupt the gentleman to state that the dif¬ 
ference between us is simply this: that I am satisfied our country can 
take care of her own coinage, and by restoring silver to its proper po¬ 
sition will bridge over the difference now existing in the value of silver 
and gold bullion. 

CAN THE UNITED STATES ALONE SAFELY ADOPT FREE COINAGE? 

Mr. LACEY. The gentleman says the difference between us is that 
he affirms and I deny the proposition that this nation can take care of 
itself. I was just about to point him to certain facts in connection with 
that very matter. I say that there have been three international con¬ 
ferences upon this subject, and I wish to say that they were called by 
those who were in favor of bimetallism; in favor of the free coinage of 
gold and silver upon some agreed ratio, and yet, among the whole num¬ 
ber of those participating, from the beginning to the end, no man was 
found who dared to proclaim such views as these which have been just 
expressed by my friend from Missouri, that is to say that this nation, 
or even this nation and France combined, could safely take that posi¬ 
tion. In point of fact many of the persons who attended these confer¬ 
ences doubted whether this nation and the Latin Union with England 
and Germany added could safely adopt such an agreement, and enter 
upon the free coinage of silver- 

Mr. BLAND. Let me interrupt the gentleman- 

Mr. LACEY. And the delegates from the United States in the last 
conference, and they were able men, too, Mr. Evarts, Mr. Thurman, 
Mr. Howe, and Mr. Horton, all men of world-wide fame, who desired 
bimetallism, who were asking for an international ratio and the free coin¬ 
age of silver, each and all are on record as plain as words can speak to 
the effect that it would be senseless, nay, worse than senseless, for this 
nation alone, or for this nation and France combined, to undertake to 
make an agreement as to an international ratio, and the free coinage of 
silver under any circumstances. 

Mr. BLAND. Does not the gentleman know that France kept them 
at par as long as her mints were open ? 

Mr. LACEY. What was the gentleman saying ? 




i 


Mr. BLAND. I say that France kept the two metals at par for 
seventy-five years, silver and gold; and could have done it up to this 
day but for her desire to spite Germany in changing her monetary reg- • 
ulations. 

Mr. LACEY. If the gentleman would simply ask a question I would 
gladly yield, but he must remember that my time is fast expiring. The 
gentleman is correct in saying that the French ratio was maintained 
for many years, but it miserably fell just as soon as the other great 
powers stopped the Iree coinage of silver. 

CONFERENCE OF 1867. 

Now, to resume, in 1867, at the time of the Paris exposition, twenty 
nations were represented in a monetary conference held in Paris, the 
United States being one, and this was the unanimous decision of that 
body: 

Arrived at the conclusion that a basis for the monetary unit of the future should 
be sought in the gold standard, with silver, if need be, as a temporary companion. 

That memorandum was adopted by twenty nations in 1867 without 
a dissenting voice. Then began the series of movements which led to 
the great depreciation of silver. This conference of 1867 was the out¬ 
growth of the opinion which had long been taking hold of European 
financiers, that wise statesmanship required a suspension of the free 
coinage of silver. It had become too bulky. It had become obnoxious 
to the people. This was soon after the great Australian and California 
mines had begun to deluge the world with gold, and they were under 
the impression that there would be gold sufficient for the monetary pur¬ 
poses of the whole civilized world. There was a corresponding indis¬ 
position on the part of the people to use silver, which was so much 
more bulky, and they desired a gold standard. This gave form to pub¬ 
lic opinion upon the subject to a very great extent and led everybody 
to look toward the single gold standard as the true solution of a prob¬ 
lem which the world had never solved. 

GERMAN DEMONETIZATION, 

In 1870 and 1871, as it will be remembered, Germany took the initia¬ 
tive and wholly demonetized silver. The Scandinavian nations, Den¬ 
mark, and Sweden, and Norway, soon followed, and after these the 
states of the Latin Union took up the subject and limited the coinage 
of silver, and thus completed its utter discomfiture by striking it down 
in the house of its friends. All the states of the Latin Union, France, 
Belgium, Italy, Greece, all of them, restricted the coinage of silver, and 
for the first time in history. So that the tendency among the nations 
of Europe from 1867 to the present time has been uniformly and steadily 
in the direction of restricting the coinage of silver and toward the adop¬ 
tion of gold monometallism. 

CONFERENCE OF 1878. 

Eleven years had passed under this new order of things when in 1878 
a new conference was called at Paris by the United States. Sixteen 
nations were represented, A full discussion was had and this was their 
conclusion: 

That it is necessary to maintain in the world the monetary functibns of sil¬ 
ver, as well as those of gold, * * * but that the differences of opinion which 
have appeared, and the fact that even some of the states which have the double 
standard find it impossible to enter into a mutual engagement with regard to 
the free coinage of silver, exclude the discussion of the adoption of a common 
ratio between the two metals. 


8 


Consequently everything fell to the ground. Without the adoption 
of a ratio agreed upon between these high contracting parties all was 
lost. It was said the coinage of silver must be limited, or stopped en¬ 
tirely. 

CONFERENCE OF 1881 . 

This conference of 1878 was followed by that of 1881, to which I have 
alluded, when the United States and France combined for the purpose 
of calling an international conference which should establish an inter¬ 
national ratio between the two metals. In calling the conference to 
order, M. Magnin of France,, the minister of finance and the president 
of the conference, said: 

In order that the metal silver may recover its former value it is indispensable 
that it should be, as in the past, freely coined side by side with gold, and as no 
state either wishes to stand or could stand alone in resuming such coinage it is 
absolutely certain that we shall not find our way out of the present difficulties 
until an international bimetallic treaty shall have been concluded. 

The gentleman who said this was the president of that conference; he 
was the friend of bimetallism, one of those at whose suggestion this 
conference had been called, and yet he says: 

No state either wishes to stand or could stand alone. 

ISI. Pirmez of Belgium, a delegate from that country, said: 

To resume the free mintage of silver without the co-operation of states now 
having the gold standard would be risking a disaster; nobody therefore v’ent- 
ures to propose such an experiment. 

This was the language of the delegate from Belgium. Now here is 
the language of the delegate from France, M. Cernuschi, who is the 
friend of bimetallism and its most prominent champion all the world 
over. What does he say ? 

The success of the conference and the fate of bimetallism then only depended 
upon Germany and England. If these two join France and the United States, 
bimetallism becomes the monetary law of the world. If one of them should 
join, it would still be possible ; if both should refuse their co-operation, it would 
be condemned to remain impracticable. 

That is the language of one of the most earnest and most able of all 
the advocates of bimetallism. 

Now Avhat did Mr. Evarts, who went there to secure bimetallism, say ? 
He says this: 

The problem that was too much for any one nation—the problem of a fixity 
of ratio between silyer and gold, which should make one money out of the two 
metals for all the world, was to be made the subject of joint consideration by 
the nations most interested in that problem. 

The most important expression in this statement is this: 

The problem that was too much for any one nation. 

Mr. Evarts distinctly recognized that. And yet the gentleman from 
Missouri claims we should adopt our own policy, that this Government 
alone and single-handed should solve this great problem for the whole 
world. 

What did Mr. Thurman say at the same conference? He said this: 

Were a great group of the states of Europe and America to form and maintain 
a bimetallic union, such as that supposed in the question, would the result be a 
great stability m the relative value of coined gold and silver? 

In my humble judgment that would certainly be the result of such union pro¬ 
vided Great Britain and Germany were parties to it. ’ 

Now, Mr. Thurman was as earnestty for bimetallism as the gentleman 
from Missouri can be, or as any man in this House; and he went there 
with the earnest purpose of bringing about a common ratio between 


9 


the two metals and the free coinage of silver; and yet he announces 
that without the co-operation of Great Britain, Germany, France, and 
the United States this must he a failure. 

Then what says Mr. Dumas, another delegate, from France, who ear¬ 
nestly advocated bimetiillism and free coinage ? Upon this question, as 
to whether this nation or France or both combined or united could 
handle this problem, he says: 

If one should say to-day “there is a nation which has the pretension, in the 
present state of the civilization of Europe, and of the rest of the Avorld, Avith 
the facilities of conimunication existing betAveen all countries and Avith the 
enormous extent of commercial relations betAveen one nation and another, there 
is, I say, a nation which has the pretension of fixing this ratio,” it Avould he 
'■ senseless. 

That is the opinion of M. Dumas. And he was one of the delegates 
from France, a country loaded up with silver, struggling and pleading 
for the free coinage of the two metals on a common ratio. And yet he 
says it would be senseless for any one nation to attempt it. And does 
M. Dumas know anything about the question? He says further: 

WhatcA'cr nation should undertake it Avould be punished for its presumption. 
A ratio of this kind can only be effectually adopted and permanently established 
Avhen great nations, representing numerous populations, submit themselves to 
such a rule. 

These, then, are the opinions of the men who represented the United 
States and other nations in this conference of 1881, the last one which 
has been held, and which assembled under the bill introduced by my 
friend from Missouri himself, and which passed by his vote and that of 
others who share his views. These men, representing his opinions and 
representing the opinions of all who desire bimetallism and free coin¬ 
age of silver, are on record unanimously against the proposition of the 
gentleman from Missouri. 

Now, it seems to me perfectly clear that any one Avho has .investigated 
this matter will agree with me when I say that it is futile, it is dan¬ 
gerous, it is an act of desperation to continue on and adopt free coinage 
of silver in this country unless we can be joined by at least France and 
England and Germany ? 

FREE COINAGE IN INDIA AND MEXICO ALONE. 

What is the fact to-day ? As I asserted a few moments ago, there is 
not a civilized nation, at least in Europe, coining silver to-day, except 
in very limited quantities and for subsidiary purposes. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. Is not India coining more silverthan the 
United States? 

Mr. LACEY. I said “European nations.” There is free coinage of 
silver in India, as there is also in Mexico, but nowhere else. Are we to 
put ourselves in that category of nations ? Let me call your attention 
to the states which are to-day using silver. 

NATIONS USING GOLD STANDARD. 

The States which are under the gold standard to-day are Great Brit¬ 
ain, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, Turkey, Egypt, 
Canada, Brazil, Liberia, and Australia. Those States are using silver, but 
only in a subsidiary capacity. That is to say, they have a gold stand¬ 
ard, the silver coin being in fact redeemable in gold, so for as exchanges 
are concerned. The nations of the Latin Union are put doAvn as bi¬ 
metallic, yet we know that gold is practically the standard in those 
countries. 

NATIONS USING A DOUBLE STANDARD. 

Gold and silver are the standard in France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, 


10 


« 


Netherlands,SwitzerlaiidjGrreece, Argentine Republic, Chili, Venezuela, 
Cuba, Hayti, and the United States. 

NATIONS USING THE SILVER STANDARD. 

Silver alone is the standard in Austria and Russia,in Europe; of Tri¬ 
poli, Mexico, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, the United States of Colombia, 
India, and Japan. 

Mr. BLAND. I think the gentleman fails to mention India, which 
has over a billion of dollars of silver currency and 700,000,000 of pop¬ 
ulation. 

Mr. LACEY. I beg the gentleman’s pardon ; I put in India with 
$1,200,000,000 of silver currency. 

Mr. CHACE. Will not the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Bland] 
take off two or three hundred millions from the population of India ? 

Mr. BLAND. No, sir ; I include all the Asiatic nations. 

]Mr. LACEY. Of all these nations which I have enumerated only 
four coined any silver whatever last year. Spain coined a small amount 
of subsidiary silver ; India coined silver as usual, and so did Mexico. 
Spain and the United States were the only nations, outside of those 
two, which coined any silver last year. Of all the remaining thirty-five 
states which I have enumerated, but two are coining any silver outside 
of India and Mexico. 

Yet the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Bland] wishes us to enter 
into this fight single-handed, and to provide for free coinage of silver 
in the United States. 

RESULT OP FREE COINAGE IN THE UNITED STATES. 

What would be the result of that course ? All the states of Europe 
are desiring to exchange their silver for gold. Of the $2,700,000,000 
of silver coinage in the world to-day, $1,200,000,000 are held in India, 
and fifteen Jiundred millions are held in Europe, the United States, 
and the various American states. Of that $1,500,000,000 a certain 
amount is necessary for subsidiary coinage. They would use in that 
way perhaps $500,000,000, and that would leave $1,000,000,000 to be 
emptied into our laps and to draw off our gold in exchange therefor. 
We would export $600,000,000 of gold and import a like amount of 
silver. 

Now, what is going on to-day? We are exporting $10,000,000 of 
gold a month, and we are buying each month $2,000,000 worth of silver 
bullion of the bonanza mine owners, and in that way we keep the 
silver bullion from being exported. If we were not providing a ficti¬ 
tious market for silver bullion in this country it would go abroad and pay 
our debts, and the gold would remain here at home. But the monthly 
purchases for the mintage of an obnoxious coin makes a forced market 
for silver bullion in this country, and our gold, which all desire, is sent 
abroad to pay our debts. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. Does the gentleman hold that unlimited 
coinage of silver in this country would induce France to send her silver 
here ? 

Mr. LACEY Most assuredly it would. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. I think not. 

Mr. LACEY. France would retain only enough for her subsidiary 
coinage. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. And would the surplus come here ? 

Mr. LACEY. Certainly it would. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. Would it be to the interest of any French- 


11 


man to withdraw silver coin from the currency of France and send it 
here if we had free coinage in this country ? 

Mr. LACEY. Most assuredly. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. Not at all. It would not be to the interest 
of any Frenchman to withdraw from that country the silver coinage. 

Mr. LACEY. The balance of trade must be settled either by gold or 
by silver. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Warner] must understand 
that France has shipped to us within the past live years many millions 
of dollars of gold coin to settle for her breadstuff’s. I pretend to say 
that with free coinage of silver in this country the coin sent to settle 
accounts with this country would be of silver, instead of gold, as hereto¬ 
fore, and the tendency and final result would be for the United States 
to receive all the surplus silver of the world, and other nations would 
take all our gold. 

GREAT CHANGE IN DEMAND AND SUPPLY. 

What is the fact in relation to this silver question? Are there any 
great changes going on in the world to bring about these dangers with 
which we are surrounded’ 

I find that in the semi-decade from 1852 to 1850 there was annually 
produced in the world $145,000,000 worth of gold and $40,500,000 of 
silver, or the proportion of $100 of gold to $28 of silver. In the next 
semi-decade, 1857-’61, the production was $127,184,000 of gold and 
$41,220,000 of silver, or the proportion of $100 of gold to $32 in silver. 
In the next semi-decade the proportion of production was $100 of gold 
to $39 of silver; from 1867-’71 it was $100 to $43, in 1872-’76 it was 
$100 to $62, in 1877-’78 it was $100 to $69, in 1879 it was $100 to $77, 
in 1880 it was $100 to $90, in 1881 it was $100 to $95, and in 1882 
the production was in the proportion of $100 of gold to $106 of silver, 
as will be seen by referring to the table published with my remarks. 
This statement shows that from 28 per cent, in 1852 and 1856 the prod¬ 
uct has increased to 106 per cent, in 1882, and at the same time an in¬ 
disposition to use this metal for coinage has appeared all over the 
world. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. Will the gentleman state the proportion 
of silver to gold in the production during the first half of the century? 

Mr. LACEY. It is not included in these figures; I have not the data 
at hand. 

Mr. CASSIDY. The gentleman will allow me to say that his state¬ 
ment is misleading, because this change in the relation of the two metals 
comes from the falling off in the production of gold. 

Mr. LACEY. And from the increase in the production of silver. 

Mr. CASSIDY. The production of silver has passed the maximum. 

Mr. LACEY. No; I beg the gentleman’s pardon. The production 
of silver in 1882 was $109,000,000, the largest amount the world has 
ever produced in a single year. The production has risen from forty 
millions in 1852 to one hundred and nine millions in 1882. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. Does the gentleman mean to say that the 
present relative value of gold and silver depends upon the relative pro¬ 
duction of the two metals ? 

Mr. LACEY. I say that it depends upon demand and supply. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. That is correct. 

Mr. LACEY. And while the production of silver has increased the 
demand has decreased. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. Mainly as the result of legislation. 


12 


Mr. LACEY. Certainly. If the gentleman can get an international 
agreement established by diplomacy and legislation, so as to provide 
for the free coinage of silver and gold upon a fixed common ratio, I am 
for that and with him. I think that would solve the whole difficulty. 
But to attempt to continue the coinage of silver without such inter¬ 
national concurrence is simply madness. 

Not only has this great disparity appeared in the production of these 
metals, but there is a greater disparity in the consumption in the arts 
and manufactures. Of the $103,000,000 of gold produced last year 
$75,000,000 w'ere used in the arts and manufactures, as estimated by 
the Director of the Mint, leaving us only about $30,000,000 to be used 
by the whole world for coinage, whereas of silver only $35,000,000 
were used in the arts and manufactures, leaving over $60,000,000 to be 
used in the world for coinage. Yet, with this deluge of silver impend¬ 
ing, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Bland] is in favor of the 
United States stepping forward, single handed, and taking up the free 
coinage of silver. I say this is worse than idle—it is suicidal. 

WHO WOULD BE BENEFITED? 

What are the interests to be benefited by such a course ? The min¬ 
ing of silver has necessarily fallen into the hands of large corporations 
possessing vast wealth, and the demand is that the bonanza princes 
who are producing this silver shall be specially favored and protected; 
that w'^e shall make a market for their product at the ri.sk of depreciat¬ 
ing the whole volume of the currency of the United States 15 per cent. 

Now, suppose by allowing the trade-dollars presented for redemption 
to count as a part of the monthly purchase of bullion, a depreciation 
of 1 or 2 cents an ounce in the value of silver bullion would result, 
how much will that amount to upon the whole annual product of 
$46,000,000? The effect would be relatively infinitesimal. 

WHO WOULD BE INJURED? 

But suppose we go on and add at one stroke $10,000,000 to the pres¬ 
ent volume of silver coinage, and by this suicidal course precipitate a 
depreciation of 15 per cent, in the whole currency of the country, w’hat 
would be the result ? 

We find that the first to suffer and the last to receive help when in¬ 
flation or debasement of coin has brought about depreciation of the cur¬ 
rency are the laborers and the'wage classes. According to the official 
figures we find that in the United States during the census year, 1879, 
2,738,930 laborers were employed in manufacturing operations, receiv¬ 
ing $947,919,674 in wages. Now, I have gone on and taken the figures 
as to agricultural laborers, domestic servants, and laborers not specified, 
as well as one-half of those employed in trade and transportation; and 
adopting substantially the same basis of wages as is shown to have been 
received by manufacturing operatives, I find the wages of all these would 
amount to more than $3,000,000,000. This vast sum is no doubt much 
less than the sum actually paid as wages in the United States during a 
single year. Now, if we should cut down the purchasing power of ourcur- 
rency 12 } cents on the dollar, the reduction upon this amount of wages 
would be $387,000,000—a total lo.ss to the wage classes in one year of 
an amount equal to eight years’ output of all the silver mines in the 
United States. Now, in order to make a market for $46,000,000 of sil¬ 
ver bullion—that is, to increase its price by 1, 2, or 3 cents an ounce— 
are you willing to risk precipitating a loss of $387,000,000 annually upon 
the laborers, the wage-receivers of the country? 


13 


Everybody knows that if the currency of our country were based on 
silver—if a dollar of 87^ cents were substituted for a dollar of 100 
cents—the rate of wages now paid would not for years advance to such 
an extent as to counterbalance this reduction. It is equally well known 
that all property of a commercial character would instantly advance to 
fully meet the depreciation. Every article the laborer and his family 
consumes would go up at a single bound, but his wages would advance 
if at all at the end of a long and painful struggle. It would be a fight 
of individuals against corporations, of large numbers without organiza¬ 
tion against firms and corporations whose managers think quickly and 
act promptly. This, it seems to me, would make the proposition of the 
gentleman from Missouri appear ridiculous if we are able (as I think 
we are) to demonstrate that the continued and increased coinage of the 
Bland dollar would precipitate a fall to the silver standard and bring 
about the depreciation resulting therefrom. 

But that is only one of the effects it would cause. That applies not 
only to wages, but to fixed values and to fixed incomes, and to the great 
mass of the commercial transactions of the country, which are beyond 
all,computation. 

WHAT MAY BE SAFELY DONE. 

There are only two ways in which silver coin can now be safely used 
as money. One is by an international ratio between gold and silver 
fixed by the leading nations of the world, and that followed by free 
coinage as a full legal tender; and the other is, failing an international 
agreement, to use it as subsidiary coin or for local purposes, or as you 
may say for domestic and internal purposes. In my judgment we have 
already coined in this country all that is necessary for use under the 
second proposition, and without an international agreement it is the 
only way we can now legitimately and safely use it. We have to-day 
about 1255,000,000 of silver of all coins in this country. That is more 
than sufficient for all subsidiary purposes. It is more than sufficient 
for all circulation below $5. 

NEW MEASURE PROPOSED. 

I had the honor of introducing a bill on Monday last which it seems 
to me would prevent any danger from using the present stock of silver 
dollars. It reads as follows: 

Be it enacted, d^c., That on and after the passage of this act it shall be unlawful 
for the Secretary of the Treasury to print and issue Treasury notes of a smaller 
denomination than $5. 

Sec. 2. That any holder of standard silver dollars or silver certificates may de¬ 
posit the same with the Treasurer or any assistant treasurer of the United States, 
in sums of not less than $10, and receive therefor silver certificates of the denom¬ 
ination. at his option, of $1 or $2. 

Sec. 3. That wdienever the standard silver dollars in the Treasury not held for 
the redemption of silver certificates of the denominations of one and two dollars 
shall exceed the sum of $20,000,000 the Secretary of the Treasury may suspend 
the coinage of standard silver dollars provided for in the act of February 28, 
1878, during the period such excess continues to exist. 

Sec. 4. That all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby re¬ 
pealed. 

It provides, as you see, for retiring all Treasury notes below $5; for 
issuing one-dollar and two-dollar silver certificates, and for suspending 
the coinage of the Bland dollar whenever the silver in the United States 
Treasury not necessary to protect the one-dollar and two-dollar cer¬ 
tificates shall exceed the sum of $20,000,000. That would make silver 
perform all the purposes necessary for money below the denomination 
of $5, and relieve us from any danger of being precipitated to a silver 
standard. 


14 


On the 1st clay of November last there was in circulation in the United 
States— 

One-dollar notes_ $30,785, 265 

Two-dollar notes_ 27, 510,196 

Standard silver dollars_ 40, 334, 932. 


Total_ 98, 630, 393 

Under the provisions of the bill introduced by me, as will be seen, 
the silver dollar, or its representative certificjates in denominations of 
one and two dollars, could be utilized to the extent of $98,630,393, or 
in round numbers say $100,000,000. These dollars or small certificates 
would go into the pockets of every person between the two oceans for 
every-day use in the current daily small transactions. Nobody deposits 
in banks these small notes, and no banker ever transports them to his 
correspondents in the commercial cities. Therefore $100,000,000 of sil¬ 
ver dollars and silver certificates would be diverted permanently from 
the great channels of trade, and would cease to imperil the medium by 
which the banks in the redemption cities settle their clearing-house 
balances, or with which the Government is to pay the interest on or 
the principal of its bonded debt. In this manner the present volume 
of silver might be safely utilized, provided its further coinage should 
be suspended until there was further demand for these certificates of 
small denominations. 

IN CONCLUSION. 

But, Mr. Speaker, to return to the proposition under discussion. What 
good reason can be given for striking out the fourth section of the bill 
now before the House, as is proposed by the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Bland] ? I think it is sufficiently estab¬ 
lished that, according to all recognized authorities, even among the 
most sanguine adherents of bimetallism, free coinage of silver in the 
United States under existing circumstances is monetary suicide, and 
not to be thought of for a moment It seems to me equally true that 
continued coinage under the Bland bill of 1878 will in due time, at a 
slow pace to be sure, but just as certainly in the end, bring this nation 
to the same disastrous condition. Are we then to look with any degree 
of favor upon this amendment, which will double the number of Bland 
dollars during four or five months to come, which are now required to 
be coined, and thus double the pace by which we are now approaching 
monetary disaster? Are we to stand oUt alone in this fatal attempt to 
stem the tide of destiny ? Are we to continue to listen to these false 
prophets of the silver god ? Have they not deceived us in the past ? 
Did they not tell us in 1878 that the passage of the Bland bill would 
bring back silver to its old-time parity with gold ? Has this proved 
true ? 

Why, sir, on the day the Bland bill became a law silver bullion 1000 
fine w'^s worth $1,208 per ounce in the city of New York, and the 412j 
grains of standard silver contained in the Bland dollar was worth 93.46 
cents. On the 12th day of the present month the same silver had de¬ 
clined in the same market to $1.12 per ounce, and the bullion value of 
the same dollar was but 87 j cents. In the mean time the world’s prod¬ 
uct of silver has increased, as compared with gold, from 69 per cent, 
in 1878 to 106 per cent, in 1882. The relative proportion of silver to the 
entire stock of coin held in the Treasury of the United States has in¬ 
creased from 17 percent, in 1878 until it is now 411 percent., and the con- 







15 


sumption of India, the only considerable market in the world left open 
for the surplus product of the silver mines, has fallen off from $73,331,675 
in the year 1877-’78, to$19,462.870for the year 1880-’81. These facts 
speak more forcibly and eloquently than can any words of mine. And 
I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that no one regrets that they do so speak 
more keenly than I do. 

I am anxious to utilize every ounce of silver that we can and avoid 
disaster. I believe that bimetallism and free coinage of both the yel¬ 
low and white metal is greatly to be desired, provided the great pow¬ 
ers of the earth will join in the adoption of that policy and agree upon 
a common ratio. But, sir, all our attempts in that direction have so far 
proved futile, and such being the case only one road leads to safety, and 
that is not to be found by adopting the legislation proposed by the gen¬ 
tleman from Missouri [Mr. Bland], which will increase instead of 
diminish the coinage of the standard silver dollar. 


APPENDIX. 
world’s money. 


Paper.. . $3,832,920,903 

Gold. 3,3a3,433,000 

Silver (of which $2,277,649,000 is fijll legal tender)..^.. 2,712,226,000 


Total. 9,878,579,903 


• INDIA—FALLING OFF IN THE DEMAND FOR SILVER. 

The India department of finance and commerce states the silver im¬ 
ports and exports of India, taking its trade with all countries for the last 
four years (the Indian fiscal year, like the British, ending March 31), 
as follows: 


Fiscal year. 

Imports. 

Exports. 

Net imports. 

1877-’78. 

$78,832,660 
27, ooa; 495 
48,025,010 
26,580,780 

$5,500,985 
8,115,025 
8,676,295 
7,117,910 

$73,331,675 
19,853,475 
39,348,715 
19,462, 870 

1878-’79. 

1879-’80. 

1880-’81. 



Table sJwxoing increase of circulation in the United States. 


Date. 

Total cireula- 

Per capita. 

tion. 

Paper. 

Coin. 

Total. 

October 1,1880. 

$1,225,359,234 
1,529,548,612 
1,566,659,668 
1,730,598,074 

$14 10 
15 56 

$10 66 
14 93 

$24 76 
30 49 

October 1,1881. 

October 1, 1882. 

15 81 

15 42 

31 23 

October 1,1883. 

17 63 

16 88 

34 51 



Total circulation in United States October 1,1883. 

Gold . $606,197,000 

Silver. 240,399,000 

Paper.. 884,002,074 


Total 


1,730,598,074 






































1(3 


Table showing increase of silver in the United States Treasury. 


Date. 

Gold. 

Silver. 

September 30,1876. 

Per cent. 
90.2 

1 

Per cent. 
9.8 

September 30,1877. 

93.5 , 

6.5 

September 30,1878. 

83.0 1 

17.0 

September 30,1879. i. .! 

76.2 i 

23.8 

September 30,1880. i 

63.3 1 

36.7 

September 30,1881. . 

64.7 i 

35.3 

September 30,1882.1 

55.4 1 

44.6 

September 30,1883.} 

58.5 

41.5 


Table shoiving proportions of world’s production of gold and silver. 


Semi-decades. 

* 

Average yearly production. 

Proportion. 

Average 
price of 
silver.* 

Gold. 

Silver. 

1852-1856 . 

$145,000,000 
127,184,000 
123,843,000 
123,251,000 
111,383,750 
113,892 ,680 
105,365,697 
106,346,786 
107,202,733 
103,161,532 

$40,500,000 
41,220,000 
49,755,000 
53,115,000 
69,490,682 
78,338,158 
81,037,220 
96,704,978 
102,309,675 
109,446,595 

100 to 28 

61^ 

61i- 

1857-1861 . 

100 to 32 

1862-1866 . 

100 to 39 

61i 

1867-1871 . 

100 to 43 

60i 

57i 

1872-1876 . 

100 to 62 

1877-1878 . 

100 to 69 

53H 

5U 

1879. 

100 to 77 

1880. 

100 to 90 

52 ^ 

51/h 

1881. 

100 to 95 

1882. 

100 to 106 

5ir 



*Pence per ounce in London. 


Table showing average London price for silver bullion of British standard 
fineness, and the equivalent price in United States money for fine silver. 


Calendar year. 

Price in pence 
per ounce, 
.925 fine. 

Price per 
ounce, fine. 

1876... 

52f 

$1 15.63 

1877. 

541? 

"l 20.15 

1878... 

52A 

1 15.22 

1879.. 

5U 

1 12.34 

1880. 

52^ 

51* 

1 14.67 

1881. 

1 12.75 

1882. 

51i 

1 12.89 

1883 .... 

50* 

1 10.83 



GOLD VALUE OF STANDARD SILVER DOLLAR. 

February 28,1878 (date of passage of Bland bill). 

March 12,1884. 


Cents. 
93.46 
87.5 


0 


o 



























































On National Aid to Education, 


No State stands sure but on the ground of right, 
Of virtue, knowledge, judgment to preserve. 
And all the powers of learning requisite. 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON. L. Q. 0. LAMAR, 

OF MISSISSIPPI, 

In the Senate of the United States, 

Friday, March 28, 1884. 

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, having under consideration 
the bill (S. 398j to aid in the establishment and temporary support of common 
schools— 

Mr. LAMAR said: 

Mr. President: I shall detain the Senate only a few moments, not 
with the expectation of adding anything new to the arguments that 
have been advanced on this subject, but simply to state my own reas¬ 
ons for the vote which I shall give. I have bestowed upon the consti¬ 
tutional question involved in this measure the study which its impor¬ 
tance deserves. I shall not go over the ground already occupied by 
the Senator from Florida [Mr. Jones], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. 
Garland], and the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Pugh], nor will I 
recite the imposing authorities arrayed by the Senator from Georgia 
[Mr. Brown]. I have no doubt about the constitutional authority of 
Congress to pass this measure. Indeed, if we should reject it on the 
ground that it is unconstitutional for Congress to give aid to the States 
in the exercise of their exclusive jurisdiction over the education of their 
people, we would be reversing the settled policy of this Government. 

The refinements and subtleties about the distinction between the 
granting of land and an appropriation of money for educational pur¬ 
poses do not satisfy my mind. Even if such a distinction would hold, 
it does not apply to the constitutional question that is made. It is 
not the kind of aid granted, whether it be in land or in money, but the 
Ijurpose for which it is gi'anted, that is to be considered. It is the 
threatened intervention of the Federal Government into the educa¬ 
tional affairs of a .State to which the constitutional objection applies, 
and intervention is as menacing when it comes in the form of a land 
grant as when it comes in the shape of an appropriation. I do not re¬ 
gard it as a menace in either case. 

Nor do the objections so forcibly presented by the Senator from Mi.s- 
.souri [Mr. Vest] strike my mind as sufficiently strong to justify a vote 
against this measure. The specification of the studies, the mere pre- 
.scription that geography, reading, writing, and arithmetic shall be 
taught in those schools, I do not think can be called a condition or dic¬ 
tation; they are words of de.scription. It is simply saying that com- 






mon-scliool education shall be taught, and it is another mode of ex¬ 
pressing the very object of the bill as it has been reported. If instead 
of the words “reading, writing, arithmetic, and geography” the words 
“the usual common-school education ” had been substituted, it seems 
to me the same object would have been accomplished. 

I, however, do not intend, I say, to repeat the argument which has 
been forcibly presented in support of the constitutionality of this meas¬ 
ure. I do not see any entering-w^edge, as it is called, in this bill toward 
Federal intervention in the jurisdiction of the State over the education 
of its children, and if theye"exists any such tendency in the public mind, 
in my opinion the passage of this bill will arrest it. 

Nor do I see any dangerous precedent in it.i;^! do not think it is wise 
or just reasoning to say that a thing that is right in itself, beneficent 
in its objects, may be in the future perverted into a wrong, nor do I 
anticipate it. have watched the progress of this scheme from the time 
it was first introduced into the other House, many years ago, down to 
the present time, when it has taken its present shape as presented by 
the Senator from New Hampshire. I have watched it with deep inter¬ 
est and intense solicitude. In my opinion it is the first step and the 
most important step that this Government has ever taken in the direc¬ 
tion of the solution of what is called the race problem, and I believe it 
will tell more powerfully and decisively upon the future destinies of 
the colored race in America than any measure or ordinance that has yet 
been adopted in reference to it—more decisively than either the thir¬ 
teenth, fourteenth, or fifteenth amendments, unless it is to be considered, 
as I do consider it, the logical sequence and the practical continuance 
of those amendments. 

I think that this measure is fraught with almost unspeakable bene¬ 
fits to the entire population of the South, white and black. Apart al¬ 
together from the material aid—and that cannot be overvalued—apart 
from the contribution of this bounteous donation of money, it will give 
an impulse to the cause of common-school education in that section 
which will tell on the interests of the people through the long coming 
future. It will excite a new interest among our peoj)le; it will stimulate 
both State and local communities to more energetic exertions and to 
greater sacrifices, because it will encourage them in their hopes in 
grappling and struggling with a task before w'hose vast proportions they 
have stood appalled in the consciousness of the inadequacy of their own 
resources to meet it. 

It is true, as some gentlemen have stated, that before the war the 
common-school system did not flourish in the South. We had an 
education there, and an educated people whose culture was as high as 
that of any peojde on earth. They were a people, one-fourth of them 
at least, perhaps, who had all the function and discipline and intellect¬ 
ual development that the finest education could give, not only from 
their own colleges at home, but from the best universities in America 
and Europe. It is true that owing to the sparseness of our population 
and to other causes the common school did not thrive, and there were 
prejudices against the common school as an efficient means of diffusing 
education—prejudices they may be called, but such as are now enter¬ 
tained and expressed by some of the ablest writers in the North. Be 
that as it may, though the common-school education did not prevail in 
that section to as great an extent as in other parts of the country, they 
were a better educated people than one would imagine from the statis¬ 
tics of il literacy. They were educated in the school of American citizen¬ 
ship, and they reached a discipline and a maturity of thought and an 
acquaintance with public and social duties that showed itself in a war 
in which grand armies stretching nearly across the continent found 


3 


themselves baffled with alternate victory and defeat, and the fate of , 
this Union held in the balance for four years. No ignorant and debased 
population could have stood before such a power with such heroic re- 
sishince for such a time. 

But the result of the war overthrew the conditions of society, and 
colleges, schools, and academies shared in the general crash and desola¬ 
tion. In that section the educated classes suffered more than all others. 

They were more impoverished than any other class, and their children 
more imperiled by falling back into ignorance than any other class; 
and now the common-school system has become the indispensable factor 
in diffusing education generally throughout the South. 

The people of the South have attempted to meet the emergency. 

They have rebuilt in a large degree their colleges, academies, and schools 
in the towns, villages, and cities, and they have made great sacrifices. 
Although the remark has been made more than once that it is impos¬ 
sible for any except one who lives in their midst to know the extent of the 
efforts and sacrifices they have made, I must yet call attention to it here. 

Guizot in one of his great speeches once said that the overthrow, 
prostration, and demolition of the politiciil institutions of a country was 
equal in the political world to the swallowing up of a city by an earth¬ 
quake, and that it would be as difficult to reconstruct the one as it 
would be to resurrect and rebuild the other. Extravagant as the illus¬ 
tration is, we have learned by a costly experience that there is much 
truth in it. Yet we have made the effort, and our people have taxed 
themselves and are still taxing themselves at a rate that is equal in 
some of our States to that of any other section of the Union. 

But the progress has been slow, the difficulties have been great, the 
burden has been grievous, and we stand, I say, almost appalled by the 
immense obstacles in the way. The generous, wise, and beneficent 
action of the Government proposed by this measure, as I said before, 
would reanimate and infuse new hopes in our people; it will be a mani¬ 
festation of respect and confidence and affection which will draw them 
into closer relations, if possible, to the Government, and dispel what¬ 
ever impressions past events have produced that it stands in an atti¬ 
tude of sternness and hostility toward them. 

The objection which has been made in the course of the debate that 
this donation is too large, that the fund is too big and comes too ab¬ 
ruptly to be availed of in that section, is based upon a misapprehension 
of facts, and the conclusion is erroneous. There is machinery there 
fully adequate to the disbursement and application of this fund to the 
wisest purposes for which it is intended. We have school-house accom¬ 
modations for far more scholars than have attended or will attend. !• 
speak from positive knowledge when I state to the Senate that there is 
in the shape of teachers—competent, well educated, full of aspiration 
for honorable usefulness and distinction in that field—material I be¬ 
lieve superior to that in any other section of the Union, for we have 
not the diversified avenues to careers which you have in other sections. 

I have some tables here which I shall not trespass upon the time of 
the Senate in reading, but I will ask the privilege of incorporating 
them in my remarks, to show the extent to which we have laid the 
foundation upon which any superstructure, no matter how large, might 
be raised for common-school education. 

We have, as 1 said before, school-houses, we have teachers and the 
material for making teachers. All we need is the money to apply to 
these ends. We can carry on in the rural districts this instruction for 
four months in some of the States, as in my own, and in the cities and 
towns for eight months, but we have not the means for prolonging the 
tuition. If we had, the blessings of education would be multiplied be- x 


X 


4 


yond the mere proportion of the extension of the time, for such is the 
character of the occupations of our people that they are not able to send 
their children to school in large numbers at any one time and for any 
very protracted period. The culture of the cotton crop, especially in 
the lower portions of the Gulf States, requires nearly all the months in 
the year. They begin in the early part of the year, sometimes in De¬ 
cember of the preceding year, to bed up the land; the field work goes 
on until in July, when we have a short vacation through August into 
September, and then the children go in larger numbers to the schools; 
until about the middle of September, when cotton-picking commences, 
and continues until Christmas and often later; but if our terms were 
prolonged, as they would be if we had the means of employing the teach¬ 
ers, there would be all through the year children sent to those schools 
for short periods, where they are now excluded by the shortness of our 
present period. 

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Hareison], in the remarks which he 
submitted to the Senate yesterday, stated that there was not a child 
within the limits of that State wfithin the ages prescribed for education 
who did not have the means to acquire, or at least wdio could not ac¬ 
quire, the elements of a common-school education. Sir, that remark 
is as applicable in its fullest, most literal meaning to Mississippi as it is 
to Indiana. There is not a child in that State from 5 years old to 21, 
and if he chooses to go after he is 21, who would not be admitted into 
school should he apply. No matter what his color, he can then find 
the means of education. 

I w’ould regret very much if the amendment ofiered by one Senator 
should by its adoption here mar and impair the effect of this bill. I 
mean the amendment wdiich proposes that the fund shall go into the 
hands of Federal agencies, and be distributed by them to the exclusion 
of the State officers. The effect of such an amendment would be a dis¬ 
crimination. It would give to the measure instead of its present gen¬ 
erous and beneficent aspect a harsh and ungracious look and effect. 

Senators have expressed the opinion that this fund wfill not be fairly 
administered, that such is the prejudice of race, that such is the dark¬ 
ening influence of slavery, that with tlie best intention our people and 
officials are incapable of administering this fund equally and equitably 
to all. 

I say that I should regret the adoption of such an amendment for 
the reason that it would change the entire aspect and character of this 
bill and show' that this Government intended to keep up discrimina¬ 
tions; that while it is animated with a desire to benefit and improve 
and elevate and edify one race, it looks upon the other as an object of 
distrust and suspicion. It would be the enactment of the color line. 

Mr. HAElilSON. Is the Senator from Mississippi speaking of my 
amendment ? 

Mr. LAMAR. No, sir; I have looked over the Senator’s amendment, 
and while it wdll not receive my support I will state with perfect frank¬ 
ness that I do not think it is amenable to that criticism. 

Mr. President, the surest way to make a people worthy of trust is to 
trust them; and the surest mode of producing alienation and making 
them stand aloof in sullen opposition or perhaps active obstruction and 
antagonism upon such a subject as this is to treat them as objects of 
distrust and disapprobation and to manifest toward them a w'ant of con¬ 
fidence which they feel they do not deserve. I say with entire confi¬ 
dence that this distrust is not deserved; that Senators are mistaken as 
to the state of feeling in the South with reference to the education of 
the negro. The people of the South find that the most precious inter¬ 
ests of their society and civilization are bound up in the question of 


his education, of his elevation out of his present state of barbarism. I 
shall enter into no argument upon that subject. I intended to read 
some authorities upon it, but my friend from South Carolina [Mr. 
Hampton] has anticipated me. I will call attention, however, to the 
fact that distinguished educators, who are supposed to be familiar by 
observation with the temper and character of our people and the his¬ 
tory of their course upon this subject, entertain quite an opposite view. 

A Northern man, the Hon. J. H. Smart, for many years superintend¬ 
ent of public instruction in the State of Indiana, speaks upon this ques¬ 
tion after an extended observation through the Southern States. I in¬ 
voke attention to the testimony of this distinguished educator. He says: 

I want to say that throughout the length and breadth of the Southern States, 
without one exception— 

Mark it, sir. His language is exhaustive, “ without one excep¬ 
tion ”— 

the colored people are given the same advantages that the white people are 
given. 

This is with the taxes imposed upon the white people themselves by 
themselves. 

And I believe from what I saw that we are able to trust the existing State or¬ 
ganizations represented by these gentlemen; we are able to trust them with 
whatever means we can appropriate, and I speak after some investigation and 
after deliberation. 

Dr. Mayo, of Massachusetts, uses the following language. I shall not 
read it all to the Senate, but simplj^ wish to concentrate his testimony 
upon this point: 

I have no hesitation in announcing to you, gentlemen, my conviction that 
never within ten years in the history of the world has an eftbrt so great, so per¬ 
sistent, and so absolutely heroic been made by any jjeople for the education of 
the children as by the leading class of the people in our Southern States. 

Practically, within ten years every one of these Southern States has put on its 
statute-book a system of public schools ; practically, within this time every dis¬ 
trict of country in the South has received something that can be called a school. 
This school public, as we may call it, consisting of State officials, of school offi¬ 
cers, of superior teachers, of tlioughtful people all over the South, is to my mind 
the most forcible, the most persistent, the most devoted school public now in 
any part of the world. There is no body of superior teachers doing so much 
work for so little pay and under such great disadvantages as in the South to¬ 
day. There is no minority of people working so hard to overcome this terrible 
calamity of illiteracy anywhere in the world to-day as in the South. 

Sir, should such a people be smitten in the face? Let me read you 
some other remarks of this gentleman in a more elaborate address upon 
this subj ect. After giving the difficulties under which the South labored 
after the war and speaking of the imperiled condition of the educa¬ 
tional interests of those States and the necessity for going to work at once 
to re-establish their colleges, academies, and schools, he uses the fol¬ 
lowing language: 

To this work they bent themselves with a singleness of purpose and a perti¬ 
nacity thoroughly American and deserving of all praise. 

* * * * * 

So, for the past fifteen years these people have toiled as nobody can know 
but themselves, through sacrifices almost incomprehensible to our wealthy 
Northern communities, to rehabilitate their little colleges and academies, and to 
furnish the small amount necessary to give their children such education as 
they might in these schools. I undertake to say that this effort alone entitles 
the South to the profound intere.st, even admiration, of all thoughtful school¬ 
men everywhere. 

I am sure that if honorable Senators had known these facts they 
would not have uttered upon this floor the language of depreciation, 
distrust, and suspicion. 

But to do this— 

He says— 

it has been necessary that the mo.st eminent teachers should be overwhelmed 


6 


with work and live on starvation wages; that great numbers of women of the 
highest social position, and the daughters of the leading families, should give 
their lives to the work of instruction ; that families strangely impoverished 
should contrive to pinch themselves for the schooling of their young people; 
and that great numbers should still be dependent on the benevolence of neigh¬ 
bors and school corporations for what they obtained. 

It is impossible, of course, to say how much this great rehabilitation 
has cost the Southern people. He goes on to say: 

But the Southern people have not paused with this attempt at the reconstruc¬ 
tion of the secondary and higher education for the white race. Beyond this, of 
their own notion— 

Mark it, sir, “ of their own notion ”— 

in every Stfite, within the past ten years, the people’s elementary common 
school for white and colored children has been placed on the ground, defended 
through the dangers of its infancy, made better every year, until it has become 
a vital institution of Southern civilization. 

Black and white. Here is the language in which he speaks of the 
teachers engaged in this work: 

A better class of people, more earnest, more determined to improve, more 
self-denying, working on wages painfully and sometimes pitifully inadequate, 
can not be found in any Christian land than the majority of the public-school 
teachers of the South. The State superintendents of education and many of the 
city and county supervisors are the same sort of people as our leading educa¬ 
tors of the North. 

si: 4: si: sfc si: 

And now the traveler through the Southland finds himself everywhere in 
the presence of an educational revival as marked as in New England in the 
days of Horace Mann. 

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar] spoke of that great 
movement of education as characteristic of that State which, he said, 
leads the column of educated States. 

Mr. HOAR. If the Senator will pardon me, I should like very much 
to say that the name of Mr. Mayo, whose testimony he has just read, 
deserves to be ranked with that of Mr. Mann as an authority, and that 
he is entitled to the gratitude of the American people for his work in 
this cause. 

Mr. LAMAR. I am very much obliged to the Senator from Massachu¬ 
setts for this tribute to the character of Dr. Mayo, and upon this indorse¬ 
ment by the Senator from Massachusetts I reiterate his assertion here 
in the presence of the Senate: 

And now the traveler through the Southland finds himself everywhere in the 
presence of an educational revival as marked as in New England in the days of 
Horace Mann. And the blessedness of this revival is that it is bringing together 
the children and youth, their teachers, the younger parents, and the more 
thoughtful people of North and South, as no movement in the political, the ec¬ 
clesiastical, or even the industrial sphere of national life can possibly succeed in 
doing. 

I have no further extracts to read upon this subject. My object has 
been not to recriminate nor even to repel, but simply to adduce testi¬ 
mony of an incontrovertible character to convince honorable Senators 
upon this floor that their apprehensions upon this subject are needless 
and that the precautions which they would take are useless. 

I would regret the proposed amendment for more reasons than those 
I have given. It would impair the working of the common-school sys¬ 
tem of the South, or of any other section of the country, to introduce 
two sets of agencies in its administration. Instead of being a harmo¬ 
nious co-operation of State organization and national aid there would be 
perhaps an antagonism, certainly disconnected effort and discordant 
forces. There would be both time and money spent, which if you used 
a single agency under the present system already occupying the ground 
would be concentrated in one harmonious effort. Besides, as it is now 


i 

t*. 

the agencies which this bill selects are the agencies which are amenable 
to the public opinion and the restraining moral sentiment of the peo¬ 
ple among whom they will operate, whereas the other would be in the 
hands of comparative strangers who would have no relation to the con¬ 
stituency in which they were working and would be uninfluenced by 
the supervision of the people at home. They would be responsible to 
no one there, to no restraining public sentiment, but simply to the ap¬ 
pointing power at a great distance, too often governed by political con¬ 
siderations instead of the interests intrusted to them. 

I said at the beginning of these remarks (and I have protracted them 
much further than I intended) that in my opinion this bill is a decided 
step toward the solution of the problem of race. The problem of race 
in a large part is the problem of illiteracy. Most of the evils, most of 
the difiiculties which have grown up out of that problem have arisen 
from a condition of ignorance, prejudice, and superstition. Remove 
these, and the simpler elements of the question will come into play with 
a more enlightened understanding and a more tolerant disposition. I 
will go with those who will go farthest in this matter. 

Liberty can not be manufactured by statutes or constitutions or laws. 
It is a moral and intellectual growth. It is the outgrowth of men’s 
natures, and feelings, and pavssions, and instincts, and habits of thought. 
A people who remain ignorant and superstitious and debased can not 
be made free by all the constitutional guarantees and statutes that you 
surround them with. You may force power upon them and subject 
others to their rule, but the great attribute of self-government and that 
real liberty which comes from it you can not confer on them while they 
remain ignorant and in bondage to their own passions and to their own 
prejudices and superstitions. 

Sir, in my opinion institutions and laws and governments and all 
the fixed facts of society are but the material embodiment of the thought 
of a people and the substantial expression of their inner life; and lib¬ 
erty, which is the culmination of them all, is a boon that can not be 
conferred upon men, but to be permanently possessed and enjoyed must 
be earned, as the reward of the development of our moral and intel¬ 
lectual faculties. 

No State stands sure but on the ground of right, 

Of virtue, knowledge, judgment to preserve, 

And all the powers of learning requisite. 

Mr. President, no one has the right to predict that this or any class of 
people will not rise to that plane of intelligence and moral elevation 
necessary to the enjoyment of this great blessing and therefore refuse 
to vote for a measure like this which proposes to aid them in their effort 
to emerge from that condition which centuries of barbarism have en¬ 
tailed upon them. For my part, I say that I would leave no legitimate 
efibrt unused and no constitutional means unemployed which would give 
to every human being in this country that highest title to American 
citizenship—virtue, knowledge, and judgment. 

I am not an optimist as to the rapid progress of the black people 
in education. However earnest the3’^ may be, there will be great dif- 
ficuUy even with the aid of the Federal Government in establishing 
effective schools for all. We are yet but in the incipience of this p'eat 
work; hardly gone further than establishing the educational machinery 
on the ground. A task of colossal magnitude is before us, and a dense 
mass of ignorance has to be penetrated. But, sir, whatever of disappoint¬ 
ment may attend it, whatever of failure, whatever of error and mistake 
and even abuses of trust may cripple and embarrass this movement, the 
great idea of popular education which has animated the North, and is 


8 


animating the South, and in which this bill has originated, will inspire 
both to guard and guide the vast host in its slow, hesitating, hut onward 
advance to knowledge and true freedom. 

Mr. HARRISON. Mr. President, I understood the Senator from 
Mississippi who has just concluded his remarks to say that the criti¬ 
cism on the objection which had been made by some of us to what we 
thought to be the too liberal appropriation in this bill, namely, that 
there was not in the South the adequate preparation to receive and use 
wisely this money, was not well taken in his opinion; and I understood 
the Senator to say that his own State was as well supplied with com¬ 
petent, well-equipped teachers to take charge of the common schools as 
any State in the Union, perhaps better supplied by reason of the fact 
that there were not there so many avenues into which the enterprising 
and talented and educated could go. 

Now, Mr. President, I desire simply, in response, to read from the re¬ 
port of the superintendent of schools for the State of Mississippi for the 
year 1880-’81 his statement as to the condition of the supply of teach¬ 
ers in that State. He says: 

The State is sadly in demand of educated and trained teachers in her public 
schools. How this demand is to be supplied is a question of great importance. 
That we have some as good teachers as are to be found elsewhere is true no 
doubt, but they are, comparatively speaking, few. 

So that the superintendent of education for that State, speaking with 
reference to the limited revenues which he was superintending, declares 
that there is an inadequate supply for the schools now established, and 
he discusses the question as to how suitable teachers are to be secured, 
urging the establishment of a normal school for white teachers in order 
that this want may be met. 

So, then, it seems, upon the testimony of that officer of Mississippi who 
is charged with the duty of superintending the schools, that there is now 
an inadequate supply of competent teachers to teach the schools that 
are at present established in that State. That is all I desire to say. * 

Mr. LAMAR. Just one word in reply to the Senator from Indiana. 

I admit that the quotation is perfectly appropriate to my remarks, 
but I speak from a knowledge equal to that of the superintendent of 
public education in Mississippi in reiterating my statement; and it is 
not inconsistent with the one which has just been read. There is an 
inadequate supply of competent teachers in view of the limited rev¬ 
enues for the purijose of employing them in that State. You can not 
command such teachers with the small salary that we are compelled 
to give to them, for the short period of time we einj^loy them, from the 
State revenue that we raise by our taxation; and it is true of other 
States. I know something about this difficulty, for I have been con¬ 
nected with the education of the youth of the South, and I say that 
there is no State and no society composed of more cultivated, upright, 
and ambitious young men, with trained faculties and with ambition to 
excel in this department of teaching, than the State of Mississippi; 
but at the very inadequate remuneration which is given to teachers on 
account of the limited resources of the State and local communities 
they are forced to seek other vocations as a livelihood. 


O 


Bureau of Animal ludustrj, 


SPEECH 

OP 

HON. S. W. T. IjANHAM, 

OF TEXAS, 

In the House of Kepresentatives, 


Wednesday, February 6,, 1884. 


The House being in Coiumittee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and 
having under consideration the bill (H. R. 3907) to establish a bureau of animal 
industry— 

Mr. LANHAM said: 

Mr. CiiATRiviAN: I regret that I liave not had tlie time nor oppor¬ 
tunity to bestow that degree of investigation upon this subject which 
its magnitude and importance demand. Had I fully understood and 
comprehended the nature and purpose of this bill when, a few days 
since, the expedition of its consideration was asked by the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Hatch] who has it in charge, I should most assur¬ 
edly have withheld my consent from allowing it to he made the special 
order of yesterdaj^; for in my judgment there are planted within its pro¬ 
visions danger-signals to one of the greatest and most material interests 
in the Southwest, and especially in the State which I have the honor in 
part to represent, that ought not to he disregarded; and especially is my 
immediate district imperiled, for a vast portion of its territory is de¬ 
voted almost exclusively to pastoral purposes. It may not be improper 
in this connection if I impart to this committee some information con¬ 
cerning its extent. In it there are more than 120,000 square miles. 
It is as large as the combined area of the ten States of Maine, New 
Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New 
Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Oliio, represented on this floor by 
sixty-one members. Over one-half of that territory is devoted to live¬ 
stock enterprise, and principally to the cattle interest, and it is by 
natural selection the home and paradise of the cowman. 

The cattle business of Texas is certainly one of the most important 
industries of that great State. From it has been derived much of the 
material prosperity which obtains there to-day; it has built cities, in¬ 
vited capital, and attracted immigration from every State in this Union 
and from “across the great waters.” I have been surprised to learn 
since I became a member of the House that I have many (juasi constit¬ 
uents on this floor and in the Senate Chamber, all the way from New 




York to Arkansas, who are directly or indlrectl}^ interested in the liv'e- 
stock entei'jnises of my district, either from owning flocks and herds or 
tracts of land chiefly valuable for grazing purposes. 

I deem it not unimportant if I invite attention fora few moments to 
the extent, and materiality of the live-stock resources of Texas, from 
official authority. I hold in my hand the report of the coinptroller of 
public accounts of the State of Texas J'or the fiscal year from Septem¬ 
ber 1, 1882, to August 31, 1883, which contains, among other things, 
a summary statement of a.ssessments of property in the State of Texas 
for 1883, as shown by assessment-rolls on tile in the comptroller’s office, 
with an enumeration of the live-stock of that State as taken from tax 
renditions. We all know that tax-payers as a rule are not solicitous to 
render exaggerated estimates as to amounts and values of property, and 
it is safe to assn me that there are in fact more domestic animals there than 
this enumeration indicates. As shown there were of horses and mules 
1,054,452, valued at.'?;27,078,508; cattle, 6,054,488, valued at$71,303,319; 
jacks and jennets, 4,756, valued at $247,325; sheep, 4,491,600, valued at 
$9,228,234; goats, 444, 454, valued at $517,601; hogs, 1,044,762, valued at 
$1,673,298; theaggregatenum])er being 13,074,512, valued at $110,738,- 
285. According to the Tenth Census reports the entire amount of cattle 
in the United States numbered 41,171,000. So I assume that there is 
to-day within the limits of the State of Texas over one-seventh of all 
the cattle in this great country. 

I will further state, Mr. Chairman, and in this I speak with only’’ap¬ 
proximate accuracy^, that there are annually exported from the State 
of Texas, by driving or shipment, not less than 500,000 head of beef- 
cattle, and I believe that this estimate might be safelj'^ increased. From 
the district which I have the honor to represent the annual exportation 
is at least 200,000, and if I were to say that $25,000,000 is invested in 
live-.stock in that district alone I believe it would be no misrepresenta¬ 
tion. 

But a few day's ago my' colleagues and myself had occasion to com¬ 
plain to the Secretary of the Interior that the great cattle-trail running 
from Texas through the Indian Territory', which has been u.sed for many 
y'ears and over which there are annually driven to northern points from 
250,000 to 350,000 head of Texas cattle, had been closed. What capi¬ 
tal, what motors ha^'e inspired this obstruction I know not, but I fear that 
it is but a part of a sy'stematic plan which has for its object every' im¬ 
pediment to cattle exportations from Texas. It is true, I believe, that 
in one State a statute was enacted that interdicted within its limits the 
entrance of Texas cattle during cerhiin season.s of the year, predicated 
upon the idea, I suppose, of the existence of some sort of diseiise. 

Mr. HATCH, of Missouri. What Sffite does the gentleman refer to? 

Mr. LAX HAM. Missouri. And the bill now under comsideration 
is reported and its conduct controlled by' the distinguished gentleman 
[Mr. Hatch] from that State. 

From these considerations, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that Texas 
Representatives ought to apply their mo.st rigid scrutiny to the bill 
now under consideration. I may “ take counsel of my' fears,” but the 
apprehension exists in my mind that if this bill pass a severe blow may 
be inflicted upon a great and material industry of their State. 

Now, my hostility to this bill, Mr. Chairman, is not actuated by the 
slightest apprehension that there exists to-day or ever has existed within 
the broad limits of the State of Texas one single, solitary, vvell-defined 
case of pleuro-pneumonia. Our climatic conditions, nutritious grasses', 


* > 
o 

wholesome piisturage, the habits and treatment of onr cattle, are not 
• such as are calculated to encourage and propagate tliis plague. Nor is 
there any disposition upon the part otour stockmen to export or place 
upon the niarketany live-stock atdicted with disease. They take sjiecial 
pride in the grades of their cattle, the quality of their beef,'and the mer- 
chantiible condition of their herds. No country on this continent .sur¬ 
passes or perhaps equals Texas as a stock-growing region, or is more 
healthful and better adapted to that purpose. And it is .shown in the 
discu-ssion which occurred here yesterday, as well as in the report of the 
committee who approved this bill, that pieuro-imenmonia does not ex¬ 
ist west of the Alleghany Mountains, and is conlined to parts of five 
States. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Wilson] says: 

This (lisea.se we now have extending some three hundred miles along our At¬ 
lantic seaboard. 

It is never found among the Western herds. If pleuro-pnenmonia 
and its eradication be the object, and “ other contagious and communi¬ 
cable diseitses” the incident, why not confine the operations of the bill, 
and have its provisions to apjily alone to infected localities, co nomine^ 

Now, sir, I desire to take up this bill seriatim and submit such criti¬ 
cisms and suggest such objectionable features jus have occurred to me. 
Its caption is tlelusive and xiroduces, prima faeie^ the imxn’es.sion that 
it ought to pa.ss, because the inference is that it seeks the extiixxation 
of pleuro-xmeumonia, to whiclMio one is likely to object per se. I would 
not, if I could, embarra.ss or obstruct the x>assage of any salutary law 
which would accomplish that object in a iiroiier way, with reasonable 
cerhiinty and at reasonable exj^ense; but 1 believe there are attendant 
and con.seqnential evils involved in the passage of this bill infinitely 
more to be dreaded than the cattle-iihigue. 

I have no great symxiathy with bureaus or bureaucracy. They involve 
the lodgment of extraordinary xiower and authority in the liands of a 
few, and this bureau, I fear, would place the great transporting and 
commercial tran.sactions in the live-stock of the country in the hands of 
a very few men, and afford the ojiportunity and in.strumentality to de¬ 
signing persons to control the markets and the transit of domestic ani¬ 
mals. While I do not .say, by any means, that such is the xibi'pose of 
the measure, or at all contemplated by its framers, still I fear that its 
I>o.ssible oxierations may produce just such re.sults. 

The tirst section provides for the organization of a bureau of animal 
industry, with the appointment of a veterinary surgeon (this is the po¬ 
lite term for wh;it used to be known in my country as a ‘ ‘ horse-doctor ’ ’) 
as chief thereof, who shall investigate and report uiion the number, 
value, and condition of the domestic animals of the Lbiited States, their 
X>rotection and use. The legal interpretation of the words “ the domestic 
animals,” I suxipoise, is to include all tho.se not/crve naturee; and just 
here we are startled at the magnitude of the work. Horses and mules, 
jacks and jennets, Ciittle, sheei), goats, hogs, cats, and dogs come within 
the generic term of ‘‘the domestic animals.” The number, value, and 
condition, the protection and use of each in the United States, are to be 
investigated and rex)orted ; not merely that, but “ the causes of conta¬ 
gious and communicable diseases among them” are to be ascertained, 
together with ‘ ‘ the means and cure of the .same ; ’ ’ and then, superadded 
to these labors, is the “collection of information on these subjects. ” I 
will simply remark, in passing, that the multiplied work of the Tenth 
Census is not a circumstance in comparison with the labor herein con¬ 
templated. Then comes a salary of $4,500 for the chief and clerk—the 


I 


4 

luldition of two iiioreoflfice-liolders to the decimated ranks of that unfor¬ 
tunate class. 

Section 2 provides for two additional agents, at a salary of $10 i)er 
day.and all necessary expenses—gross amount incalculable of estimate— 
while engaged in ‘ ‘ examining and reporting upon the best methods of 
treating, transporting, and caring for animals,” &c., all to be appointed 
by the Commissioner of Agriculture. What are ‘ ‘ the contagious and 
communicable diseases” intended? Arbitrar}’assumption may here 
step in and characterize such diseases as caprice or inclination may dic¬ 
tate as being “contagious and communicable.” Pleuro-pneumonia 
may be lost sight of in the eagerness to extend the range and broaden 
the held of “veterinary” science, and the desire to govern shipments 
and exportations. 

The third section gives the power to the Commi.ssioner of Agriculture 
to prepare such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary for the 
suppression'and extirpation of diseases, and to certity the same to the 
executive authority of each State and Territory and invite their co¬ 
operation. Whenever such plans and methods shall be accepted, and 
such executive authorities shall signify their readiness to co-operate in 
the premises, the Commissioner may ex])endone-ha lf of the money neces- 
.sary in any State or Territory for the .slaughter of diseased animals and in 
di.sinfection to extirpate the disease; and in the proviso following we 
find for the first time the fatal words, “quarantine of infected herds 
of cattle. ” It is noticeable that in the one hundred and fifty-eight lines 
of this bill the word “ cattle ” is only twice used, and in each case it is 
.surrounded with an abattis of hansh phraseology in the shape of police 
regulations, prohibition of trausportation, quarantine ! Ordinary terms 
will do to apply to “live-stock” and “domestic animats,” but when 
cattle are mentioned embargo is the word ! 

But, Mr. Chairman, when we come to .section 4, which, in my judg¬ 
ment, is the most vicious and pernicious part of the bill, it seems that 
the optionary acceptance of the regulations of the Commis.sioner by the 
States and Territories is practically neutralized and rendered nugatory, 
for it allows, upon the presentation of facts by the Commi.ssioner, the 
President of the United States to declare in (luarantine any State or 
Territory, or part thereof, and to prohibit the transportation of cattle 
out of the .same; and this applies independent of any acceptance of or 
co-operation by the States or Territories in the rules and regulations of 
the Commis.sioner. 

Mr. HATCH, of Missouri. I do not want to interrupt the gentle¬ 
man from Texas, ])ut I am .satisfied that when he comes to read the 
provisions of the bill carefully he will not be willing to have'that re¬ 
mark stand in the Recokd as he has uttered it. That is not the pro¬ 
vision of the bill. 

Mr. LANHAM. I am making my criticisms upon the bill as I pro¬ 
ceed and construing its salient features as I understand them, and the 
gentleman will have ample opportunity to respond. But I Avill read 
the entire .section, which is as follows: 

Sec. 4. That whenever a State or Territory in any section of which a conta- 
j^ious, infectious, or communicable disease exists, which the Commissioner of 
Agriculture has declared to be daiigerous to the animal industries of the nation, 
fails to make provision for its extirpation or to co-operate with the plans of the 
Commissioner of Agriculture for the extirpation of such disea.se, the President 
of the United States, pn the presentation of the facts by the Commissioner of 
Agriculture, .shall be authorized to declare in quarantine the said State or Terri¬ 
tory, or such part of said State or Territory as he may deem dangerous to the 


animal industries of the country, and to regulate or prohibit tlie transportation 
of cattle out of said State, Territory, or district. 

The Commissioner, receiving his information from the “horse-doctor” 
and the two agents “ familiar with questions pertaining to commercial 
transactions in live-stock,” may represent a certain state of facts to the 
President, it is possible, wholly imaginary, and may be derived from a 
competitive dealer and speculator, its ascertainment not even required 
to be upon oath or affirmation, which may block the avenues of trade, 
stop legitimate live-stock business, and paralyze in any localit}" one of 
the greatest industries of the country. 

What oath do the “horse-doctor” and the two agents take? What 
bond do they give? To whom are they responsible? Who shall re¬ 
spond in damages to the stock-owner, stopped possibly with his herd 
in transitu ? If it turn out that the condition ol’ his cattle be misrep¬ 
resented through careless inquiry, or for sinister purposes, who shall 
recompense him for his delay, his expense, his depreciated ])roperty 
when it finally^reaches a market, or the disbarkment of his cattle a 
thousand miles from their accustomed range, or turning them loose in 
the woods or upon the bleak barrens? Where is the remedy I’or that 
pastoral district or section of country that may be made the victim of 
fraud or misrepresentation during the market season ? 

Suppose that two ri^'al cattle companies with large supplies of beef- 
cattle are seeking the Saint Louis or Chicago niarbet, hailing from dif¬ 
ferent States or Territories, or even the same; su])])ose that iiunierous 
small ranchmen from different localities are cn route, either on foot 
or by shipment, eager to reach a rising market, whose aggiegate herds 
will affect the demand; suppose given sections of the western country 
are in active competition to furnish ])eef-supplies to tin; great cities of 
the North, and there is “a race for diligence” in reaching the nearest 
railroad stations; the excitement is intense, speculation is rife, business 
activities are strained to their utmost tension, the combative motives of 
buyer and seller are a.ssertingtheir every energy, the voracious appetite 
of the “corner-men ” is whetted to frenzy, all the machinery and stimuli 
of greed are in full play, all the multifarious agencies and influences of 
loss and gain are at work—how potential are the inducements to take 
advantage, how strong the temptation ! The oi)portunity will be afforded 
by virtue of this bill, should it become a law, to enable one man or set 
of men to seriously impair, if not utterly destroy, the Imsinessprosperity 
of another. How easy a matter to circulate the report of the existence 
of pleuro-pneumonia or other contagious disease in any locality! How 
many media for the ju’oinotion of selfish advantage maybe opened and 
employed! Avarice knows no bound. This is an era of bulls and bears, 
of corners and stock-exchanges, of bureaus and syndicates, when 
“moneyed might possesses the means abundantly of wearying out the 
right.” 

I believe that the States in their great reservation of rights are able 
to make their own local and police regulations, to govern their own in¬ 
ternal affairs, and that every measure in any wny tending to the impjiir- 
ment of their autonomy ought to receive the unwavei ing condemnation 
of their Repre.sentati^'es on this floor. Here the Federal (government 
says to the States: “ If you do not voluntarily accept and comply with 
the terms of the commissioner, suggested by the “horse-doctor” and 
bureau agents, we will coerce you, h\y embargo upon your commercial 
transactions, and quarantine your exportations. ” 

I by no means give my a.ssent to the constitutionality of this bill, but 


0 


in the brief time allowed me I have been compelled to pretermit a dis¬ 
cussion of that view of the matter, audio confine myself to a limited con¬ 
sideration of the impolicy involved. 

i^KC. 5. That in order to promote the exi)ortatiou of live-stoek from tlic United 
Slates the Commissioner of A};:ricnltnre Hliall make special investigation as to 
the existence of pleuro-i)neumonia or any contagious or commnnicahle disease 
along the dividing lines between the United States and foreign countries, and 
along the-lines of transi)ortation from all parts of the Ignited States to ports 
from which live-stock are exi)ortod, and make report of the results of such in¬ 
vestigation to the Secretary of the Treasury, who shall from time to time estab¬ 
lish such regulations concerning the exportation and ti'ansportation of live¬ 
stock as the results of said investigation may require. 

This scientific bureau,'with its “ horse-doctor ” and peripatetic at¬ 
taches, will, I suppose, go all along the line of Canada and the British 
Possessions, up and down the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, along the Gulf 
of Mexico and the Kio Grande border, with power to make inquiry as to 
the subjects contem]'»lated by this provision. When will the work of 
the bureau cease? How limitless is the field of its explorations! I 
apprehend that a necessity may arise to organize someaiew expedition 
to go out in (piest of lost horse-doctors” and bureau agents. 

The seventh section interdicts any interstiite railroad company or 
masters of steamboats or sail-vessels from receiving lor transportation 
from one State or Territory to another any live-stock afiected with tiny 
contagious disease, and prohibits the delivery of such by any person, 
company, or corporation; and the eighth section provides for notice to 
be given Ity the commissioner to the proper official of railroads and ves¬ 
sels of the existence of contagion, and also makes certain penal provis¬ 
ions in case of violation. 

Here agoin, I conceive, is to be found a fruitful source of evil. The 
railroads “will .serve whom they will serve.” The^v will constitute 
themselves the judges of whtit .stock they ought to receive for transporta¬ 
tion and what they ought not to receive. Some men’s cattle will be 
shipped, and .some will go unshipped. The penalties impo.sed will give 
to them an arbitrary option and ])Ower of refusal, and besides the no¬ 
tice brought to them may be ])rcdicated upon untrue and unfounded 
conditions. The door is again thrown wide open for misrepre.sentation 
;ind unfair advantage. It is often the case, as matters now are, that 
stockmen can only shij) their cattle upon a compliance with the most 
rigorous terms and ac(iuiescence in the limitation of liability upon the 
part of the railway lines; and in many instances long and weary drives 
are made rather tlian submit to their merciless exactions. Such trou¬ 
bles will be still further promoted and aggravated by the inevitable 
operations of this bill should its pas.sage be accomplished. But even if 
the railroad companies ttre dispo.sed to do right and to treat all alike, 
the restrictions laid upon them are such that their own safety and pro¬ 
tection ma}’ often warrant a refusal to transport live-.stock in consequence 
of imaginary roiifat/ia of some sort. 

Then comes the .section providing for prosecutions by United States 
district attorneys for violations when brought to their knowledge by 
any person making complaint, whether under oath the bill does not 
.say. More Federal ofleii-ses, more oppre.ssions to the citizen, more en¬ 
croachments of judicial power. 1 congratulate the district attorneys 
and marshals, for railroad officials and cattle-men are not usually im¬ 
pecunious; but I groan for the people. The results of the bill for evil 
Avould be fiir-reaching and affect not only the specific live-stock dealer 
but every interest which stock-growing promotes arid all exchanges that 
flow from it. 


La.-jt but not least, $:250,000 of the people’s money, to be immediately 
available, is to be appropriated. This amount is glaringly insufficient 
and wholly inadequate for all the objects enumerated. It will hardly 
be “pocket change” for the bureau. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Wilson] says: 

We pi’opose to appropriate enough money to begin this thing. 

The bureau, with its varied and comprehensive service and multi¬ 
plied calls upon the fund, Avill soon, exhaust and speedily consume this 
little sum, and, what is abhorrent to economical government, adeticiency 
of perhaps a million of dollars will arise in the early stages of the opera¬ 
tions of the new law. 

I was not astonished to hear the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Kel- 
fokd] on yesterday speak in support of this bill, for it could not enter 
into the mind of any Representative to conceive a more magniticent 
method for “unlocking the vaults of the Treasury” and disgorging 
the public funds. 

If I shall have subserved the purpose to elicit careful scrutiny and 
elaborate discussion upon this bill, to levy requisition upon its authors 
and supporters to maintain the necessity and propriety of its passage, 
and to warn this body to be careful how they vote upon it, I shall esteem 
myself most fortunate and feel that I have discharged a public duty; 
and with these remarks, IMr. Chairman, I now yield ten minutes of mj'" 
time to my colleague [Mr. Reagan]. 






TARIFF. 


SPEECH 


OP 


HON. S. W. T. LANHAM, 

OF TEXAS, 


IM M4R 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


APRIL 33, 1884. 


WASHINGTON. 

1884 . 



« 


% 


) 


SPEECH 


OF 

HON. S. W. T. LAN HAM. 


The House beingin Committee of the Whole House on the state ofthe Union, 
and having under consideration the bill (H.R. 5893) to reduce import duties and 
war-tariff taxes— 

Mr. LANHAM said: 

Mr. Chairman : In the opening of this discussion the vanguard of 
the opposition was led by the ‘ ‘ father of the House, ’ ’ the learned states¬ 
man from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kelley], in a very eloquent and pathetic 
speech. Regarding him as the essential exponent of the protectionists, 
and his utterances as ex cathedra, I did myself the pleasure to hear every 
word he said. He drew a pitiable picture of the pauperism of England; 
he went abroad to study ‘ ‘ the short and simple annals of the poor ’ ’ 
and find examples of wretchedness and misery. While listening in¬ 
tently to his graphic recitals and melancholy description of the want and 
woe of foreign humanity I wondered to myself if it had ever occurred 
to the distinguished gentleman that there was such a thing as a cisatlan¬ 
tic poverty. 

Have we no poor among us ? Are there none here whose energies 
have been paralyzed by hunger; whose brains have been overthrown 
and whose hearts have been broken by the degradation of x)enury? 
Have we no wretched tenementliouses with squalid inmates ; no stout, 
able-bodied men who rack their minds to invent some methods for the 
procurement of the bread of the morrow; no wasted women and men¬ 
dicant children? Have our crowded cities no destitute? Are all our 
sons of toil prosperous ? Are there no striking, hunger-maddened opera¬ 
tives in American Birminghams and Manchesters? I doubt not that 
spectacles as sad and gaunt as those observed by the gentleman in Eng¬ 
land could with less difficult search be discovered in this ‘ ‘ land of the 
free and the home of the brave. ’ ’ 

Is there not fast growing up in happy, proud America an aristocracy 
of wealth? Is not pauperism continually increasing? I think no re¬ 
flecting man can hope to successfully dispute the assertion that in ‘ ‘ these 
ends of the earth” misrule and mal-legislation have produced million¬ 
aires and paupers with equal pace. Have not high tarifls and class 
enactments increased the riches of the rich and degraded the poverty 
of the poor? For every capitalist there is more than one tramp. The 
time was in this country when plutocrats were scarce; the time is when 
they abound. The time was, within thememory of the venerable gen¬ 
tleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kelley], when there was not a mill¬ 
ionaire in the United States; the time is when every great city can 
furnish a score. The time was when almshouses and ” soup-troughs ” 
were not needed; the time is when the tired and dejected and hungry 
poor are glad to partake of any public or private charity. The time was 
when republican simplicity was a virtue; the time is when purse-proud 
and supercilious native Americans are aping royalty. The time was 



4 


when our laws were made for the benefit of all; the time is when they 
are enacted for the special advantage of the few. The time was when 
all patriots felt a community of interest in universal prosperity; the 
time is when avarice seeks to dominate our councils and the pen of 
greed to indite our statutes. The time was when political righteousn^s 
exalted our nation; the time is when political sin and legislative in¬ 
justice are a reproach to our people. The time is coming in the near 
future, if not now at hand, when American freemen will express their 
sovereignty, assert their j)ower, and vindicate their majesty, and demand 
of their servants, in a manner that will enforce obedience, that every 
species of class legislation, every statutory inequality, every selfish act 
shall be expunged from the records of our national law. 

It were practically impossibie at this day for any man to suggest 
anything new or essentially different from the manifold thought and 
treatment which the subject of Federal taxation has received in this 
country from time to time. It has engaged the attention and in¬ 
spired the research of governmental philosophers for more than a cen¬ 
tury, and statesmen and essayists have in turn given it their current 
contributions. It has been so oft discussed, critically considered, and 
profoundly explored that the very language employed is generic, the 
platitudes identical, the illustrations parallel, the methods thread¬ 
bare. With a very slight adjustment of transposition, and the elimi¬ 
nation of modern data, it will be discovered upon close inspection 
that much of our recent literature upon this subject is but the adroit 
reproduction of what was said scores of years ago. 

I can not, therefore, hope to attract this committee or interest the 
country by the presentation of any purely original ideas, or the submis¬ 
sion of any fresh or newly invented measures of policy. I may not 
even escape the appearance of plagiarism, and may both wittingly and 
unconsciously appropriate the thoughts and expressions of greater men 
who have gone before me. And yet, as a representative of the people, 
I have felt called upon to express myself and formulate my convictions, 
as best I can, upon what I conceive to be the most important question 
which is to-day before the country. It is, in my judgment, not only 
of paramount national magnitude but constitutes the boundary line 
which separates the great political parties which are contending for the 
administration of the Government. 

No greater, graver, or more difficult and responsible function be¬ 
longs to Congress than that involved in tax legislation, and nothing 
should receive more careful scrutiny and patriotic investigation. The 
modes of State taxation are clearly indicated, practically exemplified, 
and thoroughly understood. The citizen of the town, county, or State, 
by reference to his tax receipts, if not from a draft upon his memory, 
can tell just how much he is required annually to contribute out of 
his substance toward the support of his local government. He is able 
to reduce it to mathematical exactness, for the figures are at his com¬ 
mand and the processes are familiar to him. • The tax assessor and col¬ 
lector came to him in succession and practically instructed him in a 
manner not mysterious nor difficult of comprehension; and the instru¬ 
mentalities employed were direct, positive, and intelligible, the ob¬ 
jects of the exactions were distinctly within his cognition, and that, 
too, whether he were well versed in political economy or non-conver- 
sant with state-craft, whether lettered or unlearned. The transfer from 
the private pocket to the public treasury was simple though perhaps 
severe. 

The Federal approaches to the citizen’s purse are complex, indirect, 


o 


arid circumstantial, and hence obstructive to ordinary understanding. 
What manner of man in this great Government can readily answer, or 
answer at all, and indicate with anything approaching accuracy, the 
amount of money in dollars and cents required of him during the year 
just pixst, or any year within the last score, in support of the United 
States ? Who on this floor could furnish the information ? A distin¬ 
guished statesman in the Forty-sixth Congress and now an honored 
member of this House [Mr. Hued] said: 

The statistics will show that every head of a family who receives $400 a year 
in wages pays at least $100 on account of protection. 

Tliis estimate would show that the laboring man who has a family 
has extracted from him one-fourth of his annual earnings “on account 
of protection, ’ ’ not for the support of his Government, but to advance 
special interests and promote individual welfare. It would have been 
a most tedious if not impossible task for any American tax-payer, I 
care not how skillful in mathematics or conversant with Federal statutes 
or expert in custom-house rules and regulations he may have been, to 
have commenced on the 1st day of January, 1883, with all the lights 
before him, and by the most scrupulous observance of his food and rai¬ 
ment, investments and expenditures, specifics and ad valorems, every 
art and part of the cost of his daily life, up to the 1st day of January, 
1884, and then told how much taxes he paid to the Geneml Government 
during the year, either in separate items or aggregate amounts; and the 
problem would be still more embarrassing if it involved the segregation 
of the legitimate contributions to governmental support from those 
which went to the benefit of class interests through mal-taxation. 

A great metropolitan journal (New York Herald, February 15, 1883), 
speaking upon this subject, announced the following startling state¬ 
ment: 

We do not exaggerate in the least when we assert that there are not fifty men 
in the country, including experts, who can go over either the House or the Sen¬ 
ate tariff bill and siiy without the most elaborate study and careful calculations 
what its numerous provisions mean, or in which of them the present rate of tax¬ 
ation is increased and in which lowered. Even an expert in iron and steel finds 
the wools and woolens schedules totally unintelligible to him. An expert in 
woolens can not comprehend the metal sche.lule; and as to the average citizen, 
at least two-thirds of both these bills would be as unintelligible to him as He¬ 
brew or Arabic. And this is a law under which we are all to live. 

Statesmen of confessedly great capabilities in the last Congress ad¬ 
mitted their w'ant of familiarity with the provisions of the bills which 
proposed to tax the people. It does seem that in a country like ours 
the laws on so important a subject ought to be so constructed as to en¬ 
able the citizen to comprehend his relation as a tax-payer. Free and 
sovereign people are not content to be kept in groping incertitude upon 
a question so vitally affecting them. The very substruction of our in¬ 
stitutions is the virtue and intelligence of the people and the consent 
of the governed. Simplicity is putatively a distinguishing character¬ 
istic of republican government, and its very genius rests upon the 
foundation that each man is a factor in its composition, with full privi¬ 
lege of participation in the exercise of political power and a perfect right 
to have the laws defined with such perspicuity as may be adapted to 
his comprehension. Tax laws unduly rigorous and inexplicable are 
doubly abominable. 

I crave the indulgence of the committee if in the discussion of the 
pending bill I enter at some length into the consideration of doctrinal 
and fundamental propositions. I can not to my own satisfaction dis- 


6 


cuss the question apart from certain basic principles which I think 
ought to control tariff legislation: 

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and 
excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general wel¬ 
fare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform 
throughout the United States .—Article 1, section 8, Constitution. 

These words appear in the forefront of granted power, first in the 
enumeration of delegated Federal authority under this all-important 
section, and were manifestly foremost in importance in the minds ot 
the framers of our organic law. From them are to be gathered le^sla- 
tive warrant for the levy and collection of taxes. The power is not 
only specifically expressed but the objects and purposes of its exercise 
are carefully limited and well defined. No constitutional taxation can 
be imposed except to promote and legitimately subserve the ends de¬ 
signed. 

The desiderata in tarilf laws are constitutional authority, the public 
weal, uniformity, and simplicity. I have been reared in that school of 
politics whose primary lesson is the non-exercise of doubtful powers. 
The first thing learned by an American citizen in connection with his 
civic conditions ought to be that his country has a written constitu¬ 
tion, upon which its entire organism is predicated, and furnishing the 
supreme guide for his political faith and practice. No legislator can 
afford to support any measure which has not for its warrant, ‘ ‘ Thus saith 
the Constitution.” 

Every Representative here is the trustee of his people, an agent act¬ 
ing under a specific power of attorney, and bound to the observance of 
his instructions not merely by his responsibility to his constituency but 
by the most sacred obligation that can operate upon the conscience of 
man. Upon any proposition of Federal legislation we are logically re¬ 
ferred to these special instructions, and a faithful consultation thereof 
is our reasonable duty. Permit me to say that I have marked with re¬ 
gret and humiliation the indifference and at times outright derision 
with which constitutional allusions and objections have been received 
and treated upon this floor. 

I have observed with pain the pointless efforts at ridicule which have 
been directed against those, some of them venerable in the public serv¬ 
ice and sound in patriotism, who have sought to prevent infractions of 
the Constitution. There is a visible relaxation of fidelity and devotion 
to‘this great charter of popular liberty; the ligaments that connect the 
hearts of some of us thereto, I solemnly fear, are giving way. Such 
things, in my humble judgment, prognosticate a decadence of national 
vigor and an inevitable destruction of republican polity. When it shall 
happen that we utterly lose sight of fealty to and reverence for the Con¬ 
stitution of the fathers Freedom will leave us and carry on the wings 
of its returnless flight every hope and confidence in the integrity and 
perpetuity of our institutions. 

If we tax the people as intended and limited by the Constitution we 
must do so in order to pay the debts of the Government and to sub¬ 
serve the general well-being of the country. I do not believe that debt 
is a blessing, but a burden to be removed. I do not believe that the 
perpetuation of the national indebtedness will conduce to national pros¬ 
perity, nor do I regard as dangerous the legitimate accumulation of the 
means to discharge the same. If a tariff system be adopted with a view 
to raising revenue taxation will be lighter, the necessities of life cheaper, 
and the public Treasury can sooner respond to obligations in the hands 
of national creditors. Reduction of tariff duties, governed by a revenue 


7 


standard, implies not a decrease but an increase of money in the Treas- 
uiy. 

A high tariff levied for protection lessens the amount of import duties 
and diminishes the public revenues. The American Protectionist, i)er- 
haps the ablest journalistic champion of high taxation in this country, 
in its issue of May 19, 1883, says: 

Tariff for revenue would naturally raise more [revenue] than a protective 
tariff, while under the protective system if too much come in the simple and 
obvious remedy would be to raise the tariff and thereby decrease the importa<- 
tions. , 

In the views of the minority upon the bill now under consideration 
is to be found a corresponding statement, as follows: 

This proposed reduction will inevitably incr^se foreign importations, and, 
as a consequence, will, as all experience teaches, increase our revenues. 

When the importations are decreased by protective duties the reve¬ 
nues are diminished, the means of “paying the debts” are embar¬ 
rassed and curtailed; and to raise the tariff in order to reduce or pre¬ 
vent the accumulation of the revenues is to ignore and violate the 
Constitution, to oppress the people with high prices for what they are 
obliged to have, to compel them to pay tribute in aid of private busi¬ 
ness, and to impair ‘ ‘ the general welfare ’ ’ for the benefit of special 
classes. To carry out this idea to its logical sequence the Constitution 
should be reversed and read as follows: 

Congress shall have power to lay taxes to prevent importations, to avoid and 
indefinitely postpone the payment of the debts, and to promote the special wel¬ 
fare of certain classes of the people at public expense, and without regard to 
uniformity. 

It will require just such a construction as this implies of this clause 
of the Constitution to sustain the reasoning of the protectionists and to 
find authority for the tariff laws which have been in operation for so 
many years. That is ‘ ‘ general welfare ’ ’ which secures the greatest 
good to the greatest number. The organic law and the patriots who 
made it never for a moment contemplated any species of class legis¬ 
lation. 

The central idea, the mud-sill of our Government, is that all men 
are equal; that one man is as good as another; that there shall be “exact 
justice to all and exclusive privileges to none.” The converse of this 
is odious to every true American. Where in express language or by 
any sort of rational implication is to be found the semblance of con¬ 
stitutional authority for laying the burdens of taxation upon the shoul¬ 
ders of the many for the benefit of the few ? Where in the philosophy 
of our system of government is to be found the right of any man to in¬ 
voke and receive such legislative assistance to advance his private busi¬ 
ness to the detriment of others ? lam one of those who believe that 
in this period of our national greatness, if private enterprise, personal 
vocation, and individual employment can not prosper by their own 
spontaneous forces and native energies, and without the auxiliary and 
extraneous support of legislation, then their business activities had 
better cease in the interest of the general good and common prosperity. 

It is a poor business that will not afford its own advantages, furnish its 
own rewards, and control its own results, and ought to be abandoned. 
It is simply and obviously unjust to take from the substance and prod¬ 
ucts of other pursuits to prop and support that which is not self-sus¬ 
taining. The unconstitutionality, the apparent inequality, the palpa¬ 
ble injustice of a protective tariff, it seems to me, ought to furnish all- 
sufficient objections to its continuance. I love and admire that states¬ 
man who introspects his own motives, analyzes his own sense of personal 


8 


rectitude, and upon any public measure propounds the self-interrogatory, 
“ Is it right ? ’ ’ and admeasures his conduct by the response. 

A tarili’judiciously and equitably levied, with an eye single to con¬ 
stitutional terms and purposes, is not objectionable. Although the 
word is distasteful and its etymology refers us to historic spoliation, 
still it is the constitutional method for the obtention of revenue, and 
there is no immediate prospect of its disuse. It will be time enough 
to talk of absolute free trade when the public debt is liquidated. 

In order to raise revenue for governmental purposes it is a fact that 
the tariff must draw its supplies, in the main, from articles in common 
use and for which there is a general demand. I believe in making all 
dispensable and luxurious commodities contribute as far as possible to 
the support of the Government, and upon all such I would impose all 
the burdens they can bear, with profit to the common revenue fund. I 
wish it were so that we could run the Government upon such receipts; 
but that is not possible. A very large per cent, might be assessed upon 
diamonds, for instance, and if no evasion of duties were to occur the 
amount of taxes derived therefrom would not be considerable. 

The value of importations from this source for the twelve months 
ending December 31, 1883, under what, at first blush, would seem to 
be comparatively a very low rate of duty, was only $372,397. The high¬ 
est possible duties might be attached to rare and costly articles, and 
yet the importation thereof would be of necessity so limited as to 
bring but little money into the Treasury; because being used almost 
exclusively by the rich, and hence a minority of the people, the de¬ 
mand therefor is confined to that class and the use thereof purely vol¬ 
untary. Let luxuries, I repeat, stand all the tax they can, with benefit 
to the Government; but it will not do to contend that the needed reve¬ 
nues or any very considerable amount thereof by imposts can be drawn 
from such sources. With a prohibitory tariff they would not be im¬ 
ported; with a well-adjusted revenue tariff they would add their part 
to the general fund. 

The contrast presented in the difference between the duty on a dia¬ 
mond and that on a blanket is very striking (and that on the latter is 
iniquitous); but it is useless to say that they will each bear the same 
rate with profit to the Government. More people use blankets than 
diamonds; blankets they are obliged to have; diamonds must be dis¬ 
pensed with by some and can be by all. The wool of the sheep is in 
universal demand; the hair of the camel only partial. There are more 
blankets than diamonds, more sheep than dromedaries. We use more 
sugar than civet; one is sold by the hogshead, the other by the ounce. 
The demand for iron is greater than that for lace, for common metals 
than delicate embroidery. Besides, minuto and imponderable sub¬ 
stances can be concealed and smuggled and duties thereon evaded; but 
bulky materials can not escape inspection. This will serve to empha¬ 
size the idea that the taxes are evssentially derived from those commod¬ 
ities which enter into daily use and consumption. It would not, I 
think, be extravagant to assert that seven-tenths of our annual imposts 
are thereby supplied. 

But while this is the case, the cardinal purpose in the mind of the 
legislator should be to so reduce taxation as to make subsistence cheap 
and render all necessary articles as inexpensive as possible to the great 
majority of the people, and at the same time operate to produce the re¬ 
quired revenue; and to this end I do not favor the abolition of the ex¬ 
cise on whisky, because it may be made to lighten the burdens which, 
oppress the necessaries of life. 


9 


Any theory of taxation which has for its foundation discrimination 
in flivor of classes or particular individuals at the expense of the great¬ 
est number of the people, is unsound in policy and unjust in result. If 
we must have a tarilf let its proportionate burdens be borne by all. Let 
us not make “ fish ” of one industry and “flesh” of another. Let not 
the so-called “ business interests” of the country have any greater ex¬ 
emption from tariff reductions, or enjoy more privileges of draining the 
public, than the producers of the crude materials. 

What is business ? Is it confined to those who manufacture what 
others have produced ? That is a business interest which is honestly 
engaged in any honest labor. Honest work, whether of mind or hand, 
is equal in dignity. It would be wrong to place the raw materials pro¬ 
duced in the United States on the free-list, and assess high duties upon 
the manufactures thereof; and it would be equally inequitable to 
make manufactures free and the raw materials dutiable. The furnace 
and spindle, the shop and the arts, are not above the pick and the 
shovel, the field and the flock. The man who works in the shade or 
at the forge and employs scientific machinery is not superior to him 
who toils in the sun, or exploits the ores of the earth and utilizes his 
physical brawn. 

The capitalist who converts the crude elements into the finished fabrics 
should not be preferred over him who invests his means in the procure¬ 
ment of the original materials. The ‘ ‘ general welfare ’ ’ will be con¬ 
served by treating all alike. We occupy too high a position among the 
nations 6f the world, possess too many resources of native independence, 
to be unwilling or afraid to do right and act justly with each and all 
of our citizens. We can not afford to show any favoritism in our legis¬ 
lative enactments. No reason for fostering the interests of one portion 
of our people, for protecting the business enterprises of one locality, for 
upbuilding one more than another, at the expense and to the detri¬ 
ment of the great mass, now exists. 

The present is an age of air-lines and transcontinentals, of electric 
miracles and potent motors; enterprise is stimulated to its highest pitch; 
every industry is supplemented by all the appliances of modern science; 
the harp of the era is attuned to the music of progress; the surges of 
time and human capability have beaten back the shores of our prim¬ 
itive conditions; we are no longer an inchoate nation, but one of the 
great powers of the earth, able to assert ourselves in competition with 
the nationalities of the universe. We have yet a boundless area of un¬ 
cultivated and productive soil, upon which millions of thrifty, earnest 
people may find homes, and from which may be derived ‘ ‘ bread to the 
eater and seed to the sower; ” the opportunities for earning an honest 
livelihood are not stinted; everywhere the bounties of nature solicit the 
hand of art and labor. The danger with us is that in our phenomenal 
development we may lose sight of first principles; that plutocracy, class 
interest, corporate influence and lesions of the Constitution, by gratlual 
and insinuating encroachments, may eventually undermine the polit¬ 
ical structure which the fathers built. 

That plan of taxation which proceeds on the ad valorem idea is the 
simplest, most equitable, and most easily comprehended. I do not 
believe in the combination of ad valorem and specific duties upon the 
same article where it can possibly be avoided. I want to see our duties 
so simplified that a colloquy with the merchant can apprise the customer 
of the exact amount of tax the consumer is required to pay upon a 
given article; so that the observant citizen may be able to ascertain 
how and to what extent he contributes to the support of his General 


10 


Government. If the people could only know and fully realize the bur¬ 
dens they are compelled to bear, and the purposes of their imposition; 
if the present Federal levies were made upon them by direct taxation 
after the methods pursued by the State governments, such a revolt, 
such a storm of public indignation would be raised, as would sweep 
away, with irresistible force, every vestige of protection which deforms 
our statute-books. 

Mr. Chairman, I am in cordial sympathy with the essential purpose 
of the bill reported by the Committee on Ways and Means. As a gen¬ 
eral thing it is a movement in the right direction, but it does not in 
all respects commend itself to my unqualified approval; for as I con¬ 
ceive it falls short of accomplishing all the needed reform, and at best 
is but a conservative approach thereto. I should have much preferred 
some thorough and de novo legislation, with a presence of simplicity 
and absence of confusion, upon this subject—some bill independent of 
any reference to the act of 1883, or the ‘’Morrill tariff” of 1861, and 
not requiring a tedious inve.stigation and laborious analysis of past en¬ 
actments in order to ascertain the duties to be imposed on and after the 
1st of July, 1884. The couutry demands and expects of the majority 
in this House the inauguration of some measure of substantial reform, 
and the faith of the Democratic party is pledged to relieve the people. 
To fully execute this purpose, there must be excluded from consider¬ 
ation every thought of protection to particular persons or special local¬ 
ities, and the question must be viewed supremely from a national 
standpoint. If one industry is to be .specially fostered, all others can 
with equal propriety demand protection. If one Representative in¬ 
sists upon public bounty for a special intere.st in his district, he opens 
the door for a general application; and such a course will but perpetu¬ 
ate existing conditions. While I have neither thef time nor the ability 
to properly discuss the entire l)ill, still I feel specially called upon to 
announce my position upon one of its features, and I desire to do so in 
a plain and unmistakable manner. The people whom I have the honor 
to represent are entitled to know my views, and the right and duty are 
with me to define myself before them and the country. 

I am an humble representative, in part, of the greatest wool-producing 
State in the American Union, and come directly from a district which 
contains more sheep, I assume, than any other in the United States. The 
increase of this industry in Texas, even during the last year, is truly 
remarkable. On the 1st of January, 1883, as shown by assessment rolls, 
the number of sheep rendered for taxes in my State was 4,491,600. The 
February report for the present year from the division of statistics of 
the Department of Agriculture places the estimated number in January, 
1884, at 7,956,295; more than 1,000,000 in excess of that of any other 
State or Territory. The same estimate puts the aggregate number in 
all the States and Territories at 50,626,626, giving to Texas more than 
one-seventh of the total. 

I may fail to convince the opposition, and may not satisfy the sheep¬ 
men of the country, that the proposed reduction in the tariff on wool 
will not injuriously affect the wool busine.ss; that it will not measura¬ 
bly embarrass that interest and depress prices. I might content myself 
by saying—what ought to be a conclusive reason—that it is unjust and 
unconstitutional to tax the great body of the people to protect that or 
any other interest; that protection to one sheep-raiser, if it increases 
the co.st of the consumer’s necessities, means oppression and injustice 
to fifty other good citizens engaged in other pursuits, and that the con¬ 
scientious discharge of apparent duty is infinitely above and beyond any 
consideration of the mere consequences involved. 


S 


11 


But T do not believe, in the presence of living facts and the truth of 
history, that high tariffs on wools necessarily bring high prices to the 
wool-grower. I am not prepared to state the exact extent to which the 
character of wools produced in Texas enters into competition with that 
imported from foreign countries; but feel warranted in the statement 
that it is limited. 

Mr. Hurd, in his recent admirable speech, said: 

There are three grades or classes of wool in the market—first, the superfine or 
the Silesian wool; second, the intermediary or combing wool; and third, the 
coarse carpet wool. Of these America does not produce the superfine wool or 
the carpet wool, and it can not produce them. Therefore no duty on them can 
be of any benefit to the farmer of this country. He does not grow them. 

As to the intermediary grade this is the situation : The wools of the foreign 
countries have a fiber and texture which our wools do not possess, and the Ameri¬ 
can manufacturer needs them to mix Avith American avooI to produce the best 
results. No man can make a good suit of clothes made from American goods 
alone. From England, from France, and other parts of the world we want the 
wool with their fiber to make the best product for our manufacturer in his work 
of supplying the home demand. 

I believe every pound of American wool of intermediary grade that comes 
into this country will make more valuable every pound of wool raised here. 
The basis of my proposition on this point is that the foreign wool does not come 
into America in competition with American wool, but to supplement its defi¬ 
ciencies. This is no idle theory of mine. 

As to the general effect of the tariff on the prices of wool in this coun¬ 
try I take the liberty to quote in addition the following extract from a 
very able published letter of Senator J. H. Slater to the secretary of 
the wool-growers’ convention of Oregon, of date December 30,1883: 

It has been demonstrated over and over again from the statistics of wool prices 
in this country, covering a period of many years, during which time wool has 
been subjected to varying duties, sometimes practically prohibitory, at other 
times letting in the lower grades entirely free, with a moderate duty upon the 
higher and firmer grades, that the domestic product has always borne better 
prices under low tariffs or when wool was free than during periods of high 
duties. This fact has been reiterated in this country and elsewhere many times 
by publicists of the highest character. 

In corroboration of this statement I invite attention to the following 
quotations from the forcible speech of Hon. William M. Springer in 
the last Congress: 

In 1867 the wool-growers of the country and the manufacturers of woolen 
goods succeeded in inducing Congress to impose protective duties on the im¬ 
portation of foreign wools, and also to impose such additional duties upon im¬ 
portations of foreign woolen goods as would compensate them for the loss they 
would sustain by reason of the duties on the raw material. The tariff upon 
wool prior to 1867 had been fluctuating under various acts of Congress from 1824 
to 1865. Some of these acts place the duties very low. From 1^8 to 1861 avooI 
costing 20 cents per pound or less was on the free-list, and all other wools paid 
a duty of 24 per cent, ad valorem. From 1862 to 1864 the duty on wools costing 
18 cents per pound and less was but 5 per cent, ad valorem; and over 18 cents 
and less than 24 cents it Avas 3 cents per pound; and OA^er 24 cents per pound in 
price, 9 cents per pound in duty. 

Between 18^ and 1866 the tariff on wool costing 12 cents per pound and less 
was 3 cents per pound, and costing over 12 cents up to 24 cents per pound the 
duty Avas 6 cents per pound, and between 24 cents per pound and 32 cents per 
pound the duty AA'as 10 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem; and on all 
AA’ools costing "over 32 cents per pound the duty Avas 12 cents per pound and 10 
per cent, ad A'alorem. The act of August 22,1866, slightly changed these duties, 
but they remained substantially the same until the taking effect of the act of 
March 2, 1867, the law noAv in force. I Avill not recapitulate the various tariffs 
imposed by the act of 1867. The classification prepared for Government experts 
embraces one hundred and sixty-eight different standard samples of av’ooI to be 
taxed under this laAV. The duties, however, vary from 18 to 110 per cent. 

These burdens are A’^ery unequally distributed on the different classes of avooI, 
carpet avooIs being taxed at the rate of from 18 to 39 percent, ad valorem, while 
fine wool pays from 37 to 88 per cent, in the grease, and from 31 to 96 per cent, 
if Avashed, and from 73 to 110 per cent, if in .scoured condition. It Avill be seen 


12 


that the high tariff upon fine washed and scoured wools has had a marked effect 
upon the manufacture of woolen goods in this country, and has ^yorked greatly 
to the injury of both the wool-growers and manufacturers, as will be seen as I 
proceed further. 

The wool-growers felicitated themselves after the passage of the act of 1867 
upon the success which had attended their efforts in securing a protective tariff 
on their product; but we will see how far their expectations have been realized. 
Their object in securing tariff legislation was to prevent foreign wools from 
competing with their products. They desired to practically exclude many 
classes of wool from our markets in order that they might receive greater prices 
for all they might rai.se. I shall be able to prove that, so far from realizing their 
expectations, the market has actually been depressed; that in the States east of 
the Mississippi and IMissouri Rivers the number of sheep has vastly decreased, 
and that the price of wool has averaged less per pound since the high tariffs 
were imposed than prevailed i>reviously under low taidffs. 

* * * * * •.): * 

I have stated that since the passage of the protective tariff act of 1867 up to the 
present time, a perio<l of fifteen years, the price of wool in this country has been 
less than it was for the fifteen years next preceding that time. This proposition 
is not left to conjecture or speculation. Fortunately for the position which I 
assume, the most accurate and reliable data upon this subject have been pre¬ 
served, and herewith I present for careful examination the following statement 
f^urnished by the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics of the Treasury Department. 


Statement showing the average price of medium American washed clothing 
fleece wool from 1824 to 1881, inclusive. 


[United States Economist and Dry Goods Reporter, January 31,1880, data fur¬ 
nished by Mauger & Avery, 49 West Broadway, New York city.] 


Year. 

Average ^ 
price, t 

1 

Year. 

Average 

price. 


Cents. 


Cents. 

1824. 

44| 

1853. 

534 

1825. 

42 

1 1854. 

43 

1826. 

39 

1 1855. 

374 

1827 . 

32i 

1 1856 . 

45 

1828. 

36 

j 1857. 

464 

1829. 

36i 

j 1858. 

364 

1830. 

451 

j 1859. 

47 

1831. 

61i 

1 I860. 

474 

1832. 

47i , 

j 1861. 

384 

1833. 

50^ 

i 1862. 

504 

1834. 

54 

i 1863. 

754 

18a5. 

561 

1 1864. 

874 

1836. 

60.^ 

: 1865. 

82 

1837. 

504 

1 1866. 

63 

1838. 

42 

^ 1867. 

504 

1839.. 

491 

1 1868. 

46 

1840. 

414 ' 

' 1869. 

49 

1841. 

444 ‘ 

1870. 

464 

1842. 

374 ! 

1 1871. 

55 

1843.. 

30 I 

1 1872. 

704 

1844. 

354 1 

1873. 

554 

1845. 

374 1 

2874. 

544 

1846. 

324 i 

’ 1875. 

514 

1847. 

40 ; 

1876. 

44 

1848. 

344 ' 

1877. 

424 

1849. 

344 ' 

1878. 

404 

1&50. 

384 i 

1879. 

374 

1851. 

414 1 

1880. 

46 

1852. 

384 1 

1881. 

40 


1 


JOSEPH NIMMO, Jr., 


Chief of Bureau. 

Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, 

February 3,1882. 


The average price for the fifteen years preceding 1867 was 58.8 cents per pound. 
The average price for the fifteen years succeeding 1867 was 48.6 cents per pound 











































































13 


These statements, supported as they are by facts and figures, are ex¬ 
ceedingly cogent and to my mind unanswerable. But be that as it 
may, with me the solution of the matter, as before intimated, does not 
depend upon the possible results to one class of business enterprise, but 
upon doing what is right. I can not, as a public representative, sworn 
to support the Constitution, seeking general justice, economic adminis¬ 
tration, and fair dealing to the entire people, ask that wool be protected, 
if it has to be done at the expense of all other interests and thereby 
lay the foundation for the protection of everything else which clamors 
for class legislation. I consent to and shall vote for the reduction on 
wool as proposed by the bill under consideration, as well as for all 
other reductions contemplated, as far as they go, believing that to the 
extent of such reductions the general well-being of the people will be 
promoted. But while this is the case I wish to contend that an aver¬ 
age reduction of 15.06 per cent, on wool is not met by an average re¬ 
duction of only 19.99 per cent, on the manufactures of wool, as estimated 
under this bill. 

The following statistical statement, prepared at my request by the 
Cliief of the Bureau of Statistics, shows the operations of the tariff upon 
wool and the manufactures thereof, and the relative difference in the 
results of the old la w and the act of March 3,1883. 

Value of imports of wool entered for consumption in the United States and 
the ad valorem rate of duty collected during the following periods: 


During the six months ended December 31— 


Articles. 

1882. 

1883. 

Increase. -|- 
Decrease. — 

Value. 

Ad valorem rate of 
duty collected. 

Value. 

Ad valorem rate of 

1 duty collected. 

1 

Value. 

Ad valorem. 


Dollars. 

Per ct. 

Dollars. 

Per ct. 

Dollars. 

Perct. 

Clothing wool. 

1,210,689 

55.46 

2,399,515 

44.73 

4-1,188,826 

—10.73 

Combing wool. 

1.35,123 

50.19 

615,677 

43.48 

-f- 480, .554 

— 6.71 

Carpet wool. 

3,505,980 

27.79 

4,345,385 

25.02 

-i- 839,405 

— 2.77 

Manufactures of wool 

22,400,387 

66.71 

22,064,512 

68.90 

— 335,875 

-f- 2.19 


JOS. NIMMO, Jr., Chief of Bureau. 


Treasury Department, 

Bureau of Statistics, March 7, 1884. 


From this it appears that the duty on the character of wools therein 
stated was decreasetl, while that upon woolen manufactures was in¬ 
creased as indicated, under the act of the Forty-seventh Congress. The 
inequality was glaring enough under the old law. The reasonable pro¬ 
portion and adjustment of rates would have demanded under that a very 
considerable reduction on the manufactures of wmol to have equalized 
them with those upon the raw materials. And now while the present 
bill limits the maximum rate of duty on wools and woolens at 60 per 
cent, ad valorem, and is pro tanto a relief to the people, yet I think it 





























t 


14 

preserves and perpetuates, to a greater or less extent, many of the origi¬ 
nal vices, and in addition provides: 

That nothing in this act shall operate to reduce the duty above imposed on any 
article below the rate at which said article was dutiable under “An act to pro¬ 
vide for the payment of outstanding Treasury notes, to authorize a loan to regu¬ 
late and fix the duties on imports, and for other purposes,” approved March 2. 
1861, commonly called the “ Morrill tariff.” 

This clause prevents, it is true, a 20 per cent, reduction on some char¬ 
acters of wool, but conies, I think, materially to the aid of certain 
woolen manufactures, and allows the duties thereon to remain too high. 
I do not favor any indorsement of the maladjustment or cabalistic feat¬ 
ures of the existing tariff law. In my judgment the pruning ought to 
be thorough and the reformation radical. “What is worth doing at 
all is worth doing well.” If existing conditions are condemned, it 
seems to me that “the ax ought to be laid to the root of the tree;” if 
the tares are to be separated from the wheat, why not collect them all, 
and apply the fire? I believe in an intrepid policy and a heroic treat¬ 
ment of this national disease. If it be wise and proper to agitate the 
tariff question—and that it is I entertain no doubt—the agitation, it 
seems to me, should be comprehensive, and the work of reformation ex¬ 
tend all along the line. 

No skirmishing, no half-way measure, no temporizing expedient 
will elicit popular commendation, or endure the test of enlightened 
criticism. If the desired and necessary legislation can not be accom¬ 
plished—and under the present composition of Congress I fear it is 
hopeless—a courageous assertion of principle, an exhibition of the faith 
within us can be made. Now, I have no adverse criticism to make upon 
the pending bill, save the iwopriety of eliminating therefrom the defects 
and inequalities which characterize the past enactments; if they are to 
furnish the model, if it were left to me, I would lop off their excres¬ 
cences, heal their deformities, and eschew their vices. But if in the 
judgment of wiser men it be now impracticable to obviate these im¬ 
perfections, I shall support the bill in its present shape in the interest 
of harmony and concert of action. For one, I am willing to lay upon 
the altar of the common country every selfish con.sideration, and that 
my people shall rely upon their natural resources, their own protective 
energies, the legitimate profits of their own pursuits, unaided by any 
tribute to be extracted at the toil and expense of their fellow-men. 

It is neither impolitic nor improper to demand an equivalent conces¬ 
sion at the hands of othere. The humblest shepherd, who in the soli¬ 
tude of the western prairies attends his flock and listens to the bleat¬ 
ing of his lambs, is the peer of the grandest millionaire in the crowded 
city, whose music comes from the hum of his spindles and the clang of 
his machinery. The one is just as good, just as nobly born, just as 
American, just as much entitled to consideration as the others. Equal 
rights is the transcript of the paternal mind, planted in the corner¬ 
stone of our republican edifice, and when by ruthle.ss hand removed, 
the stately structure will be in ruins. I would adorn this idea by the 
splendid language and patriotic sentiment of our distinguished Speaker 
[Mr, Carlisle], who, in discussing the Tariff Commission, said: 

The unskilled and unpretending laborer who guides the plow and gathers the 
harvest is as much entitled to the protection of the law and to the encourage¬ 
ment of the Government as the scientific artisan who has mastered all the mys¬ 
teries of his craft. Each one of the busy millions who helps to create and dis¬ 
tribute the varied products of this wonderful laud of ours has an undoubted 
right to demand an equal participation in all the advantages conferred by the 
laws of his country; and I repudiate every definition of American industry or 
American labor which excludes a single honest and useful occupation. Who- 


15 


ever challenges the right of the humblest citizen, whatever may be his trade or 
occupation, to an equal participation in the benefits conferred by the Govern¬ 
ment so long as he bears an equal share of its burdens, denies the equality of 
man; whoever asserts that one class of men or one species of industry has a 
right to exact tribute from another for its own benefit, or has superior claims 
u^n the consideration of the Government, asserts a doctrine utterly at war 
with the first prineiples of our political system. To call such a doctrine the 
“ American doctrine,” and to announce it in high-sounding and patriotic phrase, 
is simply an attempt to hide its deformity beneath a rhetorical and sentimental 
garb, and will deceive no one who looks beyond the surface. 

These living words and imperishable truths will forever do credit to 
the heart that conceived and the tongue that uttered them. Far be it 
from me, while candor compels these suggestions of imperfections, to 
interpose, if I could, the slightest obstruction to the passage of this bill. 
If nothing more can be accomplished, I hail it as a partial relief, and 
give it welcome, as the beginning of a great and glorious work, whose 
consummation is supremely desired, and will result, when selfish mo¬ 
tives and sectional partisanship shall be absorbed by American patriot¬ 
ism—when the devoted servant and faithful lover of his country shall 
rank higher in political excellence than the mere Democrat or the Re¬ 
publican. 

Upon this great question, in conclusion, I beg to express the convic¬ 
tion that here is the battle-ground; on this field victory is to be won, 
or from this contest will come defeat, disastrous and terrific. This issue 
minifies all others; upon none else can the great combat be successfully 
waged. The Constitution is with us; the justice of the case is with us; 
the hopes of the future are with us; our day and generation demand an 
unfaltering consecration to the work before us. May we ‘ ‘ quit ourselves 
like men,” as the representatives of the great party of the people, and 
ultimately furl our flags in the federation of mankind, the universal 
brotherhood of a common citizenship. 

O 



'.J 


Tariff. 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON. G. V. LA WHENCE. 

OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

In the House of Kepresentatives, 

Monday^ April 28, 1884. 

The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Un 
•and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5893) to reduce import duties and 
war-tariff taxes— 

Mr. LAWRENCE said: 

Mr. Chairman: I am very much obliged to my friend and col¬ 
league who has taken his seat [Mr. Storm] for his courtesy in yielding 
me a portion of his time; and not only that, but for his very able and 
exhaustive argupient upon this subject. I am only sorry that every 
member of this House was not present to hear him, it was such an able 
argument on this question, and in such great contrast to the one we 
heard from the gentleman just before him. 

Mr. Chairman, although the provisions of the Morrison tariff bill have 
been fully and freely discussed here and in the public journals of the 
country, and nothing especially new can be said, yet I offer no apology 
for the time I may consume in expressing my opinion, for my constit¬ 
uents are very deeply interested in the questions involved, and on the 
final issue of the measure. Among them are large manufacturers, em¬ 
ploying many laborers; then agriculturists, producers, wool-growers, 
stock-men, with their associations organized for the common good. 
Miners, excavating millions of tons of coal; men in charge of schools, 
academies, colleges, merchants, mechanics; and intelligent discussions 
have been had in primary meetings by thoughtful, intelligent men 
on all phases of the questions involved in this act. And when I enter 
my solemn and emphatic protest against this measure, fraught with 
such peril to the substantial interests and prosperity of the country, I 
speak the sentiments of at least four-fifths of my constituents without 
regard to party proclivities. 

For the last fifty years periodical attacks have been made on the 
American system—so named in the days of Clay, Webster, and Stewart. 
In 1816-1829, and on until 1841 and 1846, these attacks generally came 
from leading men of the South, Calhoun, McDuflie, Hayne, Hammond, 
and others; but for twenty years or more just passed the teachings of 
Southern men who owned their laborers and were mostly engaged in 
raising cotton have found advocates in the Western States of the Union. 
The cause of this has doubtless been the fact that among them there 
were few manufacturing establishments, most of the population was 
engaged in agricultural pursuits, and, raising cattle for the Eastern mar¬ 
kets, were essentially producers, and quite naturally embraced the idea 
so common that duties levied on the products of goods manufactured 
abroad enhanced the price to them here. This narrow view of the ques¬ 
tion has often led to this repeated and almost perpetual cry against 




manufacturers as a class of monopolists enriching themselves at the ex¬ 
pense of others. Thoughtful men who examined the subject saw that 
one of the essential conditions to the growth and prosperity of any coun¬ 
try was a proper division of labor, a diversity of employments; and 
Providence had wisely provided for this by giving some localities rough 
lands not suited to agricultural purposes, but with water-power and 
great advantages for manufacturing purposes, and under these lands 
was found stone, coal, iron ore, and the raw material in great abun¬ 
dance; then in other places rich farming and grazing lands for the pro¬ 
duction of the cereals, meat, &c., for food. 

The wise policy of our fathers was to encourage diversified industries, 
build up manufactories in iron, wool, cotton, &c., where laborers could 
be employed, where there would be an army of consumers to take and 
use in a home market the products of the farmer. To do this it was 
absolutely necessary to place a tariff on foreign goods at that time, not 
so much for revenue to support the Grovernment as for protection to our 
infant manufactories. Of course all sensible men knew in 1816, about 
twenty-seven ye<irs after the adoption of the national Constitution, with 
limited means, with little skilled labor and little machinery, we could 
not compete with England, and our wisest statesmen saw that by a just 
system of imposts on all goods manufactured abroad that could be man¬ 
ufactured here would tend to build up and strengthen our own indus¬ 
tries and create rivalry and competition in the United States, and hence 
the adoption of this policy as an essential S 3 "stem. It was bitterlj’- as¬ 
sailed, and the same cry was then made that is now, that the poor man 
would be oppressed and must pay the duties, and that direct taxation 
to sustain the Government was preferable. The sequel proved that this 
healthy competition at home brought about by the tariff polic}^ reduced 
some articles in a few years below the duties imposed. It was laid 
down by Hon. Andrew Stewart (one of the ablest defenders of the pro¬ 
tective system) “ that there never was a high protective tariff imposed 
on any article where the price was not in the end reduced. ’ ’ 

Glass manufactured abroad at one time cost $12 per box. A duty ol' 
$4 was placed on it, and the competition in our own market reduced it to 
$2 per box, just one-half the duty. Four cents per pound was put on 
cut nails when the price was 12 cents per pound, and the competition 
brought them down to 3 and 4 cents i^er pound, even less than the duty. 

Many of the most able and trusted leaders of the old Democratic party 
were bold and fearless advocates of this system, and none more so than 
Jefferson and Jackson. Their teachings are repudiated by the free-trade 
wing of the Democratic party to-day, and Senator Beck, of Kentuck}'^, 
boldly warns Mr. EANDALLand his branch of the party what they may 
expect. In his speech recently delivered in the Senate he used this 
language; 

Men wlio think they are Democrats and take the position that the Senators 
from Vermont and Ohio do will find but little comfort inside the Democratic 
camp after the national convention meets. 

Last year a revision of the tariff was made by the aid of an intelligent 
commission, authorized by Congress, to meet the demands made by manj^ 
good men that in the present advanced stage of manutactures in this 
country some reduction of duties on specific articles might be properly- 
made. The intention was to get some per)nanent basis where the 
country would rest and be free from agitation. The just protection 
afforded Iw the act of 1867 to some intere.sts, especially wool grown 
in this coimtr 3 % was unwisely and unjustly reduced, and it was hoped 
this dut 3 ’ could be restored when an examination showed it necessary 



to the safety and encouragement of the American wool-grower coming 
in competition with the wool grown on cheap lands and by cheap labor 
abroad. Yet, instead of allowing this to be done and permitting the work 
of the commission and the act of Congress to stand as a fair concession to 
this spirit of free trade, this Morrison bill is pressed upon the country 
before a trial could be made of the act of 1883, and alarm, distrust, 
and almost a panic is produced in the manufacturing and commercial 
business of the country, which may lead to disastrous results, and this 
not by any action or demand from the people, but to create an issue on 
a question of vital interest which may assist this particular and domi¬ 
nant wing of the Democratic party to succeed at the coming election. 

This horizontal 20 per cent, experiment was made in 1857, when there 
was no necessity for it, and made the revision of 1861 necessary; and 
the act making a 10 per cent, reduction in 1872 was repealed in 1875. 
It is an indiscriminate method of striking at all interests, and so incon¬ 
gruous (as shown by the able analysis of the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 
McKinley, himself a member of the Committee of Ways and Means) 
that no officer of the custom-house or importer can understand it. And 
very properly did Mr. Beck, the able Senator from Kentucky, say: 

I admit that we have not been able to present a very satisfactory bill for re¬ 
lief from tariff taxation in the House of Representatives. 

How significant this admission by one of the ablest of this free-trade 
branch of this party. 

In 1872 the Democratic platform had in it this declaration: 

That there are in our midst honest but irreconcilable differences of opinion 
with regard to the respective systems of protection and free trade ; we remit the 
discussion of the subject to the people in their Congressional districts and the 
decision of Congress thereon wholly free from Executive interference or dicta¬ 
tion. 

Now, as they come nearer and nearer to the open declaration of free 
trade (a position already assumed by some of their boldest leaders who 
declare for open ports all over the world) they propose, as a party, to 
tolerate no local differences; but they defiantly and imperiously de¬ 
mand that all Democrats who are not with them and for this bill are 
figainst them, and their proper place is in the Kepublican party. 

This measure which you determine to make the shibboleth of your 
faith, and to which all who can remain in the party must subscribe, 
and on which you boldly stake the perpetuity of your party, will never 
meet the approval of the people. Can you ask any intelligent or thought¬ 
ful man to condemn a policy which has borne such fruit? When you 
go to the farmer, the mechanic, the laborer, and tell him this protect¬ 
ive system is pernicious, that they are taxed to support the rich man¬ 
ufacturer, he turns with a significant smile and points you to the un¬ 
exampled growth and prosperity of his country. He tells you that any 
system is a good one which will feed and clothe and make happy and 
contented 55,000,000 people; which has been so strong as to invite and 
induce 17,000,000 foreigners to share with us these blessings, and under 
which this country has grown from a small tamily of thirteen colonies 
into an empire with thirty-eight States and nine outlying Territories. 

In the year 1860 the total wealth of the United States was estimated 
at about $16,150,000,000; this represented the accumulations of the na¬ 
tion from the earliest history of the country to the year the war broke 
out—a period of about three hundred and fifty years, more or less. David 
A. Wells, esq., one of the ablest champions of free trade, estimated the 
wealth of the country in 1882 at $64,636,000,000, which shows an in¬ 
crease in wealth of 400 per cent, in twenty years. The wealth of Great 
Britain Wiis estimated by Mr. Mulhall, ol the Koyal Society of London, 


4 


in 188^ at $40,640,000,000. If these estimates are approximately cor¬ 
rect, the increase in our wealth as a nation in twenty years has been 
$3,846,000,000. We have been under a fair protective tariff all these 
twenty years. Mr. Charles S. Hill, statistician of the State Depart¬ 
ment of the United States, estimated our national wealth in 1880 at 
$55,000,000,000. This would appear fabulous if the calculation was 
not based on actual facts and figures. We have reduced the national 
debt from $2,600,000,000 bo $1,600,000,000 in these twenty years under 
fair protection. While we have generally kept the balance of trade in our 
favor, we have by care and general prosperity increased our population 
20,000,000. The population of our large cities has doubled. The prod¬ 
uct of our coal mines has increased from 14,000,000 tons in 1860 to 
80,000,000 tons in 1880. 

The number of farms in the United States in 1860 was estimated at 
2,000,000, and in 1880, 4,000,000, and the value of these has increased 
from $3,000,000,000 to over $10,000,000,000. The product of cereals in¬ 
creased under protection from 1,230,000,000 bushels in 1860 to 2,700,- 
000,000 in 1880, over 100 per cent. The value of live-stock has risen 
from $1,000,000,000 in 1860 to $2,500,000,000 in 1880, and the annual 
products of the farm have risen to $3,000,000,000. 

The tarifi’ of 1867 on wool stimulated that industry and the number 
of sheep from 22,000,000 in 1860 to 40,000,000 in 1884, and the home 
products of wool have increased from 60,000,000 to 240,000,000 pounds. 
These facts and figures are taken from carefully prepared statements ol‘ 
Mr. R, B. Porter, of the late Tariff Commission, and Mr, E. P. Martin, of 
New York, who has given the subject patient and careful investigation, 
and they show to all reasonable men that this wise system of protect¬ 
ing labor of our own country, manufacturing our own goods in all de¬ 
partments of production on our own soil, consuming the produceof the 
agriculturists in the home market, has enabled us to pay fair wages for 
labor and has added in the general aggregate to our national wealth in 
an unparalleled ratio. Instead of spending our money abroad we 
have kept it at home, balance of trade has been generally in our favor, 
and it is estimated that 90 per cent, of production goes to pay for labor, 
and this is spent among our own people. 

This statement of results is so overwhelming that I can not see how 
our opponents are to meet it. It is a full, complete, unanswerable ar¬ 
gument to all the theories of the advocates of this measure. In the 
light of such facts liow do you expect to convince the laboring men of 
the country that they are oppressed and pay to make the manufacturers 
rich while they grow poorer and still poorer? You greatly underrate 
the intelligence of this class of our citizens when you thus appeal to 
their passions and prejudices. Among the class of toilers in our mills, 
mines, and workshops you find many who have had'practical lessons 
on this subject and read and understand the political economy and 
wisdom which underlies this whole economic and self-sustaining sys¬ 
tem better than you do, and are entirely satisfied with the results. 
They understand the plain and simple proposition that goods of all de¬ 
scriptions, whether composed of wool, cotton, silk, steel, or iron, must be 
manufactured for the common wants and demands of the country, and 
when you propose this shall be done on the other side of the Atlantic 
by the cheap labor of European countries and the product carried here 
free of duty they answer you with the common-sense argument which 
you have failed to comprehend: “We have the raw material growing 
in fleeces on our own sheep, the cotton raised on our own soil, the iron 
ore in our own hills, the coal in inexhaustible quantities lor fuel, and 


5 


oil to lubricate the machinery of the world; we have the machinery, 
the skill, the industry to run our own mills, to produce most that we 
need for the common uses of men. We have willing and intelligent 
laborers, and we will give them the preference, because they are identi¬ 
fied with us as citizens, having a common interest with us in all that 
pertains to the wealth, happiness, and prosperity of our common coun¬ 
try.” 

Our manufacturers can not compete with foreigners in the same busi¬ 
ness (unless protected by proper impost duties which go into the com¬ 
mon Treasury) by reducing the price of labor to the standard abroad. 
Do you demand this on the mistaken plea that you will buy goods 
cheaper? Do you not see that Cobden free-trade clubs are being formed 
in many localities in the United States, boldly demanding the over¬ 
throw of this beneficent system under your teachings? Suppose you 
could succeed in electing your candidate to the Presidency and ob¬ 
taining control of both Houses of Congress, and reduce the duties to your 
standard (which some of you frankly admit is only opening the door 
to your ultimate purpose of the entire and absolute abrogation of all 
impost duties), what would be your condition? Of course your manu¬ 
facturing establishments must go down, because American laborers will 
not, can not live at such prices as could be offered them. You drive 
the American from his own market and foster the mills and workmen 
abroad, and having succeeded by your policy in accomplishing this, the 
foreign manufacturer takes control of your market without competi¬ 
tion and at once raises the price of his goods to suit himself. You will 
then have driven your own manufacturers out of the market which of 
right belonged to them and given to those who owe you no allegiance, 
thrown millions of men out of employment, destroyed or impaired the 
value of hundreds of millions’ worth of property in mills and machin¬ 
ery, and sent into agricultural and other pursuits those whose business 
you have destroyed or rendered unproductive, breaking up our whole 
economic system and this proper division of labor, and giving us a na¬ 
tion of producers with no home market for our surplus products. 
Contemplate thoughtfully the inevitable result of your policy, your 
great national industries blotted out and a prey to the cupidity of 
Great Britain, your country flooded with goods manufactured abroad, 
the products of British capital and degraded labor, and no means to 
purchase them; millions of honest men idle, with parents and children 
in want, because you have taken away their birthright in this free land 
and given it to the subjects of a foreign power. 

The concession made to the clamor for a reduction of the duties in 
the tariff of 1867 by appointing a commission to examine and revise 
it with a view to permanent reduction was in my judgment a mis¬ 
take. The country was prospering, laborers were receiving adequate 
compensation for work, and were for the most part entirely contented. 
We were exporting more than we were importing; the future seemed 
to be full of promise. 

The modifications and reductions recommended by the commission 
were so changed in the House and Senate that really it might have been 
claimed little of the work of the commission was left, and so conflict¬ 
ing were the provisions that it required an expert, to harmonize them 
before being authoritatively published. 

The depression in the general business of the country for the last year 
has been caused for the most part by these changes, and now absolute 
distrust and a well-grounded fear of the passage ot the Morrison bill has 


(J 


well-nigh produced a panic among the manufacturers of all kinds of do¬ 
mestic goods. They hesitate to make contracts ahead. They fear the 
ascendency of this free-trade i)arty, and must exercise caution. They 
will make no outlaj-s for new buildings, will add nothing to their cap¬ 
ital, will run cautiously with a limited number of hands. Like the en¬ 
gineer in charge of a train where bridges and trestles are weak, he moves 
with caution, afraid to put on steam and make the run in the usual 
time. Give him positive assurance that the road is in excellent condi¬ 
tion—bridges strong, tunnels well arched, road-bed solid—and he goes 
fearles.sly and rapully to his destination. 

Let busine.ss men be assured that the Republican party shall be kept 
in ]X)wer, that the proper protection shall be given us under their tariff 
of 1867, and steam will be applied, conlidence restored, and the train 
will run on full time with ample provision on hand. 

Mr. Chairman, before I clo.se I desire to say a word in behalf of an 
intere.st which has suffered very much by the tariff of 1883, and in 
which my constituents are very deeply interested, and which will be 
literally destroyed (at least so far as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West 
Virginia are concerned) if the bill now before us should pass. The 
wool-growing and sheep-breeding interest is second to none in imj)or- 
tance in the United States, and is essential to the happiness and com¬ 
fort of the whole people. 

At least $ir)0,000 was lost in last year’s crop alone to the counties I 
represent by the reduction in the tariff of 1883, and yet some members 
of Congress from agricultural and wool-growing districts voted for it. 
Few of these will ever do so again. While many have seen and exam¬ 
ined a statistical and interesting presentation on this subject made before 
the Committee of Ways and Means by Hon. Columbus Delano, of Ohio, 
president of the National Wool-growers’Association, very many have not, 
and as it presents the subject in detail and at very much greater length 
than I have time to devote to any similar preparation, and the statements 
made are entirely in accord Avith my sentiments, I append them that I 
may giA^e them circulation over my district. 

These tables for the most part are taken from official papers in the 
Agricultural and Treasury Departments here and are entirely reliab le. 
Indeed, on a subject affecting so au tally the whole country, Ave can not 
afford to be incorrect. Examine them in detail and you will find them 
interesting and in.structive on this question, 'this whole question Avill 
be committed to the electors of the country in November next, and an 
emphatic declaration against it, and those who would make it the estab¬ 
lished policy of the country, Avould possibly iDreA’^ent its introduction into 
the Forty-ninth Congress. It can not now pass a Republican Senate 
or meet the approval of the ExecutiA’-e. This is the last speech I shall 
make on it here, as in all probability I shall not return; but my suc¬ 
cessor will be in accord Avith the sentiments I have expressed, and at 
least one district Avill remain true to the policy of our fathers on this 
vital question. 


Appendix. 

THE TARIFF—AVOOL. 

Washington, D. C., February'IO, 1884. 
Statement of Mr. Coluvitms Delano. 

Mr. Columbus Delano, of Ohio, addressed the committee on the subject of the 
duties on wool. He said : 

Mr. Chairman and gentleman of the committee, the duty which I have under¬ 
taken to perform before this committee in behalf of the wool-growers of the 



United States is simply to ur{?e the reasons for a restoration of the wool duties 
in the taritt of 1867. It is not my purpose to discuss the bill which is now pend- 
in^ before you, and which g;oes by the name of your chairman, or the general 
principles of economic legislation, except as they may be incidentally involved 
in the propositions which I have to make. It is a duty which I have under¬ 
taken with reluctance, and so far as I am concerned, I am indebted to the volun¬ 
tary hospitality (so to .speak) of the committee for the privilege of appearing 
here, as I made no request to be heard. 

I wish to invite your attention, therefore, to the skeleton of my argument. 

I shall endeavor to show, in the first place, that wool-growing had no pros¬ 
perity in the United States worthy of that name until the act of 1867 was passed. 
Lnder that head I shall attempt to show you what magnitude and importance 
it ha.s assumed under the influence of that legislation, and under the promise, 
implied, if not expressed, thatthe legislation was to be permanently secured to 
the wool-growers and to their industry. 

Then I shall attempt to show you the influence of the tariff of 1883 on this 
prosperity, both Irom facts outside of the record and from an examination of 
facts which are exhibite<J in the admini.stration of your customs in the first six 
months of the influence of this law of 1883. 

These, with an answer to some of the arguments that have been made against 
a restoration of the tariff of 1867 and in favor of that of 1883, constitute a skele¬ 
ton of my remarks. 

PUOTEcrrivE duty on wool. 

During the first thirty-five years of the Republic the National Legislature of¬ 
fered no encouragement to the production of wool, but it was admitted free of 
duty. The tariff’ act of May 22,1824, first recognized the importance of wool¬ 
growing and contained the following clause : 

“On wool a duty of 20 per cent, ad valorein until the 1st day of June, 1825; 
afterward a duty of 30 per cent.: Provided, That all wool the actual value of 
which at the place whence imported slx^ill not exceed 10 cents per pound shall 
be charged with a duty of 15 per cent, ad valorem.” 

The act of May 19, 1828, advanced the duty on wool costing 10cents per pound 
and over to 4 cents per pound and 40 percent, ad valorem until the 30th of June, 
1829, from which time an additional ad valorem duty of 5 per cent, was imposed 
yearly until the whole ad valorem duty should amount to 50 per cent. When 
this tariff’ bill was under discussion in the House of Representatives Mr. Steven¬ 
son, of Pennsylvania, said : “ Hemp, iron, spirits, wool, and woolens are equally 
entitled to protection.” In the Senate Mr. Benton proposed to insert a clause 
laying a progressive duty of 10 per cent, per annum on wool until it should 
amount to 51) i)er cent, ad valorem and 5 per cent, afterward until it should 
amount to 70 per cent. The act of July 14,1832, which took effect March 3, 1833, 
admitted free of duty wool costing 8 cents or less per pound, and imposed a duty 
of 4 cents per pound and 40 per cent, ad valorem on wool costing 8 cents and 
over iHW pound. The act of 1842 imposed 5 per cent, on wool costing not over 7 
cents, and 3 cents per pound and 30 per cent, ad valorem on all others. In 1846 
the specific duty was abolished, and in 1847 the ad valorem was reduced to 24 
per cent. The tariff of 1857 admitted free all wool costing 20 cents or less per 
pound, and that of 1861 imposed a duty of 5 per cent, on wool costing less than 
18 cents, 3 cents per pound for that costing 18 to 24 cents, and 9 cents on that 
costing over 24 cents per pound. The act of 1864 advanced the rates to 3 cents 
per pound for wool costing 12 cents or less, 6 cents for that costing from 12 to 24 
cents, 10 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem on that costing from 24 
to .32 cents, and 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent, on all costing over 32 cents 
per pound. 

This history of protective legislation on wool is given for the purpose of sub¬ 
stantiating the observation that legislation previous to the tariff act of 1867 failed 
to afford such protection as would justify American agriculturists in investing 
largely in the business of wool-growing, and this fact made apparent the nece.s- 
sity for the act of 1867, which afforded to wool-growers the first adequate protec¬ 
tion ever extended to them. 

The act of March 2, 1867, provided that all wools should be divided into three 
cla.sses for the purpose of fixing duties, namely : first, clothing; second, comb¬ 
ing; and third, carpet wool. 

Upon wools of the second class and of the first, unwashed, of the value of 32 
cents or less per pound, a duty was imposed of 10 cents per pound, and 11 per 
cent, ad valorem ; exceeding 32 cents in value, 12 cents per pound and 10per cent. 
Upon Avools of the third class, valued at 12 cents or less per pound, a duty of 3 
cents per pound; exceeding 12 cents, 6 cents per pound. Washed of the first 
clas.s were required to pay double duty, and scoured, of all classes, to pay three 
times the duty imposed on unwashed. These rates continued without change 
until July 1, 1883, except from August 1,1872, to March 3,1875, when there was a 
reduction of 10 per cent, therefrom. 

The tariff of 1867, so far as it affected the respective interests of the wool-pro- 


8 


ducers and the manufacturers of wooien goods, was the result of an agreement 
arrived at after long consideration and in a spirit of compromise. In its con¬ 
summation the late Mr. Henry S. Randall and Dr. John L. Hayes exerted a 
strong influence. Its wise, just, and equitable provisions are easily demon¬ 
strated by statistics in regard to the production of wool before and since its 
passage. 

It appears from reliable statistics that during the last four census years the 
number of sheep and the production of wool were as follows : 


('ensus years. 

Sheep. 1 Wool. 

1850.. 

Number. 
21,723,220 
22,471,225 
28,477,951 
43,576,899 
50,500,000 

Pounds. 
52,516,959 
60,264,913 
100,102,387 
235,648, 8M 
320,000,000 

1860. 

1870. 

1880.;. 

1883. 



It will be seen from the above table that the increase in the number of sheep 
in the decade from 1850 to 1860 was only 748,055, equivalent to 3^ per cent.; but 
from 1860 to 1870 it amounted to 6,006,675, or 27 per cent. This augmentation 
was largely due to the protective tariff of 1867, the influence of which was felt 
during the subsequent decade, as the increase of more than 15,000,000 (15,098,948), 
or 53 per cent., in the number of sheep conclusively proves. From information 
that is believed to be trustworthy the number of sheep in the United States in 
the year 1883 was 50,500,000, an increase o.f 6,923,101 in three years, or 5.3 percent, 
annually, the same average percentage of increase as occurred in the decade 
from 1870 to 1880. 

The increase in the quantity of wool produced during the same period is still 
greater in proportion. This is accounted for in the following manner: Wool- 
growers having secured the assurance of the domestic market, by the act of 1867, 
at once took measures calculated to increase the production of wool. One of the 
methods necessary to accomplish this end was to increase the number of sheep; 
the next and most difticult was to make the animals produce a larger quantity 
of wool, and to this end the wool-growers of the West expended large sums of 
money for the purpose of procuring breeding animals that would cause their 
flocks to carry heavier fleeces. The result of this was that the increase in the 
average weight of fleece rose from 2i and 3? pounds to 5 and 5i pounds, accord¬ 
ing to location. The cost of this experiment in breeding was much greater than 
one inexperienced in the business would suppose, but its successful result is 
demonstrated by the quantity of wool that the census tables now show was pro¬ 
duced by the sheep of the United States and the average weight of their fleece. 

Wool-growing was rarely remunerative as an industry in the United States 
until after the passage of the act of March, 1867. Since that time, until the re¬ 
duction of duty under the act of 1883, American producers have been able to 
compete successfully with those of foreign countries, and our sheep farmer 
have been induced to multiply their flocks and increase the number of their 
sheep until there are, at the present time, more than one million persons (1,020,- 
728) who are flock-masters, exclusive of those on public-land ranches. The 
statement hereafter given, prepared by the statistician of the Department of 
Agriculture, shows the number of flocks of sheep in each State and Territory 
of the Union, except tho.se on public-land ranches. In view of the foregoing 
facts the United States Taritt’ Commission made the following observation, 
namely: “The phase of the industry of wool-production that arrests the at¬ 
tention of the economist is its general distribution. Not a State in the Union, 
and in some of the.se not a county, but has some portion of its wealth invested in 
wool production.” Then referring to the act of 1867, the report continues : “The 
law fixing these duties was passed * * * Avith the approbation of the entire 
body of producers * * * the wisdom which guided its promotion has found 
substantial vindication in the growth of sheep husbandry during the past fifteen 
years. As a result of augmented production the price of wools has been reduced 
to the consumer.” (See report, page 28.) 

The report then proceeds to give the average prices of the United States 
wool clip in Boston for four periods, as follows : In 1867 (before the influence of 
the tariff had reduced the price), 51 cents per pound ; in 1870,46 cents ; in 1875, 
43 cents ; in 1880,48 cents. 

The following conclusions are justified by what has been stated : that the 
number of sheep has been nearly, if not quite, doubled since the passage of the 
tariff act of 1867 ; that the qviantity of wool annually produced is three times as 
great as it was at that date; and that the cost to the consumer had been re¬ 
duced (prior to the passage of the act in 1883) about 6 cents per pound, or at 
















9 


the rate of 12 per cent. To produce these results wool-growers have expended 
many millions of dollars to obtain the best strains of blood for breeding pur¬ 
poses, in the construction and adaptation of farm buildings to meet the neces¬ 
sities of summer care and winter feeding, and in various other ways, all of 
which has been done under solemn compact with the manufacturers, sanctioned 
by an act of Congress, which guaranteed to the producers the home market for 
their wool. This is what the act of 1867 meant. 

It follows logically and conclusively that any change in the tariff act of 1867 
that fails to do what that law has done, namely, secure to the wool-growers of the 
United States the home market, will surely injure and tend to destroy an in¬ 
dustry that gives employment to more than 1,000,000 flock-masters and several 
million employes, and adds each year to our national wealth more than 300,000,- 
000 pounds of wool, valued at over $100,000,000, and 12,000,000 carcasses for food, 
valued at about $50,000,000. 

EFFECTS OF THE ACT OP 1883. 

The passage of the tariff act of March 3,1883, has already crippled this im¬ 
portant industry, and if the rates of duty imposed by the act of 1867 be not re¬ 
stored its destruction may be regarded as an accomplished fact. 

If required to give reasons for these conclusions, I submit the following : 

First. The price of wool before the passage of the act of 1883 was bai-ely re¬ 
munerative ; the subsequent reduction of prices has been so great as to preclude 
profit, except perhaps in some of the Territories and sparsely-settled States, where 
the price of land is exceedingly low. I venture to state, without fear of successful 
contradiction, that the clip of 1883 has been sold by the producers at prices vary¬ 
ing in different States from 2 to 5 cents per pound less than the clip of 1882. The 
producers in no States, so far as I am informed, sold at a reduction of less than 
2 cents; in many of the States the reduction was greater, and in the States of Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia I venture to estimate it at an average of 4 
cents or more per pound. 

The actual loss on the clip of this year, e.stimatedat 4 cents per pound, amounts 
to about $12,000,000. It is pertinent to ask, does the percentage of reduction to 
the consumer in the prices of woolen goods equal that in the price of wool ? 

It may be stated tjiat the market quotations are made up or averaged from the 
prices at which wool has been sold or is held after it left the hands of the grow¬ 
ers. The producers were compelled to sell their clip, for in many instances it 
furnishes the means of subsistence and of carrying on their business. They 
were met after the clip was ready for market with the reduction caused by the 
act of 1883, and they were in effect told that they must sell at a reduced price or 
find no purchasers. 

That the importations have not been .so large as some anticipated results from 
the fact that the wool-growers were compelled to part with their clip at a re¬ 
duced price or permit the manufacturers to supply themselves more extensively 
with foreign wools. In short, to retain the dome.stic market they were compelled 
to reduce the price of their wools to a point that limited importations. 

Second. The duties imposed by the act of 1867 were no more than were abso¬ 
lutely required to exclude such foreign wools as enter into competition with 
ours. Therefore the results of the act of 1883 are already observed in the large 
increase in the importation of wools from Australia and South America. The 
superior advantages for producing cheap wool that Australia possesses are not 
generally understood, and for that reason I desire to refer to the report of Mr. 
Owen Spencer, our consul-general at Melbourne, in which he states that the num¬ 
ber of sheep in the British Australian colonies during 1880 and 1881 was 72,239,- 
:159, or nearly double the number contained in the United States. He says: 

“The pastoral wealth of Australia is enoi-mous; its capabilities for wool¬ 
growing are practicably unlimited ; its mild climate and general adaptation to 
grazing purposes obviate the nece.ssity of providing food and shelter during the 
winter; nature, in her bounty, has provided these. It is believed that Queens¬ 
land alone could easily raise from 30,000,000 to 40,000,000 head of cattle without 
cultivating an acre of ground for fodder or spending a sixpence for the im¬ 
provement of the natural pasturage.” 

To further illustrate this point, I submit official statements of the Treasury 
Department, marked B. One of these statements shows the large increase in 
the quantity of wool entered for consumption during the six months after the 
act of 1883 went into operation, namely, from July 1 to December 31, 1883, as 
compared with the corresponding period of the preceding year. 

Of clothing wool, amount paying duty in the six months ended December 31, 
1882, 5.364,466 pounds. Amount in the six months ended December 31,1883, 
10,-431,655 pounds. Increase nearly 100 per cent. (94.46 per cent, or 5,067,189 
pounds). 

The quantity so entered for consumption during the six months after the act 
went into operation, being 10,431,655 pounds, nearly equaled the quantity en¬ 
tered during the whole preceding year, that being 11,546,530 pounds. 


10 


Of combing' wool, the increase was more marked; the quantity paying duty 
during the six months ended December 31,1882, was only 523,442 jjounds, and 
only 1,373,114 pounds during the whole fiscal year ended June 30,1883, whde 
during the six months after the act went into operation the quantity that was 
entered for consumption was 2,664,456 pounds, being more than five times the 
quantity entered in the corresponding period of 1882, and nearly double that 
which was so entered during the entire fiscal year of 1882-’83. 

Of carpet wools the increase in six months was nearly 10,000,000 pounds, the 
relative figures being as follows: Entered for consumption in six months ended 
December 31, 1882, 24,769,229 pounds; six months ended December 31, 1883, 34,- 
150,552 pounds; increase 38 per cent.; 9,381,323 pounds. 

It is worthy of mention that during the period of four months from March 3 to 
July 1, 1883, before the tarifl’ act under consideration went into operation, tlie 
importation of foreign wool largely increased, and upon arrival was stored in 
bonded warehouses awaiting the 1st of July, on which day clothing and comb¬ 
ing wools could be entered for consumption at a reduction in the rates of duty 
equal to about 10 per cent, ad valorem. 

The quantity of wool remaining in the bonded warehouses of the United States 
on the 30th of June, 1883, was 26,972,660 pounds, the largest quantity being ware¬ 
housed at Boston, 16,653,114 pounds, in the vicinity of the most extensive woolen 
mills of the country. Of the remaining 10,319,546 pounds, 8,665.121 were stored 
in New York warehouses. 

Having shown that the reduction of the rates of duty on wools xmder the act 
of March 3, 1883, was greater than on Avoolen goods, and that this reduction 
caused a large increase in the quantity of foreign wools that entered into con¬ 
sumption during the six months ended December 31,1883, as compared with the 
corresponding pei-iod of 1882, it is pertinent to inquire wljether the reduced 
rates on woolen goods Avas sufticient to cause an extensive inflow from foreign 
countries. 

Official returns made to the Treasury Department shoAV that the value of 
woolen goods that entered into consumption during the first six months under 
the operation of. the tariff act of 1883, as compared with the corresponding six 
months in the year immediately preceding, was as follows: 



Value. 

'Amount of 
duty. 

EquiA'al e n t 
p e r centage 
ad A'alorem. 

Six months ended December 31, 1882... 
Six months ended December 31, 1883... 

$22,4<X), 387 
22,064,512 

$14,943,626 
15,203,183 

66. 71 
68.90 

Decrea.se in 1883. 

335,875 


Increase in 188.3. . 

259,557 

2.19 

i 



From the above it will be observed that so far from being an increase in the 
value of woolen goods imported during the first six months under the new tariff, 
there was a slight decrease; and in place of a reduction in the average ad valorem 
duties there was an increase of over 2 per cent. This shows either that there 
Avas a decline in the value of Avoolen goods imported during the first half of the 
fi^al year 1883-’84, or that there was a considerable increase in those kinds of 
goods paying higher ad valorem rates of duty, as, for example, fine cloths, 
Avorsted goods, iic 

PROTECTIVE POLICY OF GOVERNMENT. 

Economists Avho haA'e been in faA^or of protectic’e legislation by the Congre.s.s 
of the United States have regarded it as of the highest importance that a pro- 
tectiA’e tariff should not only serve to encourage manufacturing, mining, and 
agricultural industries, but should also in especial manner protect labor. 

The loAV rates of wages paid to the AA'orking people in those countries that com¬ 
pete in our markets with domestic products and their sad condition are well 
knoAvn to the members of this committee, some of Avhom have personally in¬ 
vestigated the condition of the toilers in the mills, factories, shojis, and mines 
of Europe. To such gentlemen it is unnecessary to say that one of the princi¬ 
pal objects of protective legislation is to prevent the degradation of our work¬ 
ing people to the level of those in foreign countries. 

In the manufacture of AA'oolen goods great improA’ements in automatic and 
other machinery used haA'e been made in recent years, until the number of hu¬ 
man hands noAV employed in the A arious processes is comparatiA’ely small. In 
the A'ast products of AA'oolen and AVorsted mills during the census year 1880, 
amounting in A'alue to $267,262,913, the aggregate number of employes Avas only 
161,557, and nearly 20,0(X) of these consisted of boys and girls under fifteen years 
of age. Highly important as this industry is, and deserA'ing, as it does, ample 














11 


«iicourageiueut from the National I^egislature, its claim for protection, on 
the ground that it employs labor, is far surpassed by the wool-producing in¬ 
dustry, an industry numbering 1,020,000 proprietors, who are the owners of 
50,500,(X)0 sheep, of an aggregate value of $250,000,000. These proprietors are, as 
a rule, freeholders, and the value of the land required for summer and winter 
feed for their flocks can not be estimated at less than $10 for each animal, thus 
aggregating $500,(X)0,000. These liock-masters, in conducting their business, af¬ 
ford constant employment to more persons than they number themselves, the 
whole exceeding 2,000,000 persons. 

The ingenuity of American inventors has not been able to provide automatic 
or other labor-saving machinery to diminish the number of employes. Men are 
required; strong, self-reliant men in the successful prosecution of this industry. 
Neither boys nor women can endure the constant fatigue and vigilance attend¬ 
ant thereon. Here is an opimrtunity to encourage labor, and this labor, I beg 
your committee to remember, is not performed in buildings where the laborers, 
are .sheltered from .storms, nor where the temperature is modified by artificial 
heat, but it is performed in the open air, where the laborers are exposed to the 
exti'eme heat of summer and to the extreme cold of winter, all of which must be 
endured. 

Let meadd that these laborers arc extensive consumers of manufactured prod¬ 
ucts, of protected articles of every description, woolen and cotton goods, cloth¬ 
ing, boots and shoes, hats, fire-arms, cutlery, nails, iron and steel products of all 
kinds, sugar, rice, and everything that our country makes or produces, and by 
legislation i>rotect.s, these agricultural laborers consume. The only material 
protection ever given them, or that they have seriously demanded, is that now 
under consideration. Do you expect to turn them away with the unphilosoph- 
ical and fallacious theory that they are producers of “ raw material,” deserv¬ 
ing no protection? Should you do so your aiLswer will be, in my judgment, as 
crude as their production is ‘‘ raw.” But, gentlemen, treat them as you may, 
they are not only producers of wool, but they are men and patriots. They will 
contribute in the future as in the past toward the payment of your public debt 
and the replenishment of your Treasury, and should an enemy approach our 
shores, and money and muscle be needed for the preservation of our institu¬ 
tions, these humble sheep-fartners will give, as some of them have heretofore 
given, money, personal service, even their .sons and their own right arms for 
the maintenance of the nation's iivtcgrity and honor. 

THE COMPARATIVE EFFECT OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1883, ON THE WOOE jVNn 

THE WOOEEN INHUSTRIES. 

A comparison of the effect of the tariff act of March 3,1883, on the.se two allied 
industries may not be out of place in an argument to show the ju.stice and pro¬ 
priety of restoring the duties on avooI as they were under the act of 1867. 

It has already been stated that this act w'as the result of an agreement between 
the producers'and manufacturers in wool. It was made after much considera¬ 
tion, and in order to settle a controversy between these two interests that had 
been coeval with their existence. In this controversy the manufacturers had 
always been victors and thereby had retarded the growth of sheep husbandry 
and diminished the production of domestic wool. This so-called agreement de¬ 
serves a stronger name; it was a solemn compact for a union designed to be 
enduring, upon which the producers of wool might rely. Upon the faith of this 
treaty they did rely, and expended large sums of money in the prosecution of 
their business, thereby increasing its growth and advancing its prosperity with 
a rapidity almost marvelous, as has been shown by the facts and figures already 
submitted. The magnitude of the expenditures made by wool-growers, since 
the passage of the act in 1867, would, if stated, hardly be credited by those having 
no practical knowledge of the business. The act of March 3, 1883, was an abro¬ 
gation of this treaty and without reason. It was really an act of divorce with¬ 
out cause and without alimony, and it deserves to be set aside and annulled, and 
the original treaty restored. 

RELATIVE REnUCTION OF DUTIES ON WOOL AND ON WOOLENS. 

A few facts and figures w'ill show how the reduction of duties by the act of 1883 
has affected thei-espective industriesof wool growing and wool manufacturing, 
and the figures will substantiate some observations already made. The follow¬ 
ing tables, marked C, present the comparative rates of duty on wools and on 
w'oolens under the resi)ective tariff acts of 1867 and 1883, and show the average 
ad valorem rates on each class of wool and on each of the classes or kinds of 
woolen goods separately and in groups. From these tables it will be observed 
that, on the foreign wools that enter into competition with ours, namely, cloth¬ 
ing and combing wools, the average reduction of duty was about 10^ per cent. 
On foreign manufactures of wool the average reduction was6i per cent. While, 
therefore, wool-growers have sufiered so large a reduction in the protective 
duty on their product, with no compensatory advantages, the manufacturers of 


12 


woolen goods have been largely compensated by the reduced price of wool, 
domestic as well as foreign, as I have already shown. 

Of the $42,000,(XX) of woolen goods imported into the United States during the 
last fiscal year ended June 30, 1883, dress goods constituted more than one- 
half, or $22,619,106, the duty on which, under the act of 1867, averaged 68J per 
cent, ad valorem. Under the act of 1883 the average would be 64^ per cent., be¬ 
ing a reduction of only 4? per cent. The next in value was woolen cloths, 
amounting to $10,806,324 the average duty on which was 73.3 per cent., and 
under the present act it Avould be 04j per cent., a reduction of 8.9 per cent. Of 
the other articles imported, no one exceeding $1,400,000 in value, tiie average re¬ 
duction in duty under the act of 1883, as computed on the imports of the last 
fiscal year, was as follows : On manufactures of wool not specified, 9.92 per 
cent.; woolen and worsted yarns, only $433,363 in value, 10.68 per cent.; woolen 
and worsted shawls, 6.53 per cent.; wearing apparel, 9.45 per cent.; webbings, 
bindings, braids, &c., 7.15 per cent.; carpets, mats, rugs, 7.65 per cent.; .shirts, 
hosiery, &c., 1.59 per cent.; shirts, drawers, and other articles, except hosiery, 
being only 1.03 per cent. 

As already stated, the average ad valorem reduction on $40,837,565 of the total 
importation of woolen goods during the last fiscal year ($42,129,336) was only 6i 
per cent., or, to be exact, 6.23 per cent. 

It is respectfully submitted that if the wool-producing and wool-manufactur¬ 
ing industries are to be injured by legislation, no unfairness or unjust discrim¬ 
ination should be made by Congress. The relative interests of producer and 
manufacturer were carefully considered in 1866-’67, and the tariff act of 1867 was 
satisfactory to each alike, and as a result both have enjoyed prosperity. 

Referring again to the reduction of the duty on clothing and combing wools, 
it has been asserted by some that the reduction in the dividing line in the value 
of wools paying 10 and 12 eents per pound respectively, from 32 to 30 cents, 
would, to a considerable extent, compensate wool-growers for the abolition of 
the ad valorem rates. This story might have been believed by the proverbially 
credulous marine, but no intelligent sailor or wool-grower believed it then or 
believes it now. The remorseless logic of figures fails to demonstrate the truth 
of the predicted result. The official returns, showing the duties paid upon wool 
during the fiscal year ended June 30,1883, gives the following results : Clothing 
wools, value 32 eents or less per pound, 11,466,637? pounds ; value over 32 eents 
per pound, only 57,478 pounds, or one pound costing 6ver 32 cents to every 199$ 
pounds costing less than 32 cents. In the aggregate imports from foreign coun¬ 
tries during that year no wool is valued at above 25 cents per pound, except from 
Australia, from which country the direct importations amounted to 2,604,701 
pounds, valued at $656,045, being an average cost of 25.2 cents per pound. 

One of the reasons given by the manufacturers for insisting upon the reduction 
of the duties on wool is that it was necessary in order to compensate for the re¬ 
duction of the duties on woolens. As a protectionist I have never been able to 
recognize the validity of this argument. These two productions, so far as legis¬ 
lative protection is concerned, stand upon their own respective merits. When 
properly considered I think it will be found that there is no logic in the assertion 
that because the duties on woolens are reduced the duty on wool should neces¬ 
sarily be reduced also. One who believes in the doctrine of protection does not 
admit that a protective duty upon an article produced in this country, where all 
the circumstances connected with its production are favorable, is necessarily in¬ 
creased in jjrice to the extent of the duty. 

The theory of the protectionist is that under the conditions above alluded to 
domestic competition Avill reduce the price of the article to the minimum cost 
of its production; that the protectiv^e duty is only a security to the domestic 
manufacturer that he shall not have his business destroyed by a temporary in¬ 
undation from other countries, where capital is plentiful and laborcheap. The 
protective duty is simply a security to the manufacturer to induce him to invest 
his capital in a bu.siness which by dome.stic competition will produce an article 
as cheaply as it can be produced and at the same time furnish a market for it at 
home. 

Now, the as.sertiot» of the uianufacturers before alluded to, if it rests upon any 
logicsxl basis, is a claim that by reducing the duty on wool they will cheapen 
the article for their own consumption, not for a single year, but as a rule for the 
future. Apply their logic to manufactured fabrics. Dothey admit that the pro¬ 
tection they receive increases the price of their goods? They have claimed for 
the last half a century that the reason for their demand for protection was not 
to increase the price of their goods, but to give them the command of their do¬ 
mestic markets and prevent their industries from being destroyed by over¬ 
whelming inundations from abroad. Hence they have always claimed, and 
have generally had, as they have at this mom'ent, under the act of 1848, such 
protection as secures them against the calamity before referred to. 

Any legislative duty that fails to secure to the domestic hibrie the control of the 
home market fails to amount to protection. Apply this principle totlie article 


13 


o! wool. As before stated the duties of 1867 barely secured to the American pro- 
<lucers the home market. Importations were made to some extent even under 
the act of 1867, but that act gave to the producers of wool the control of the mar¬ 
ket at home; but the act of 1883 fails to do this. I do not say that its authors so 
intended, but I do say without fear of contradiction that under this law wool- 
growers can not control the domestic market. 

At this very point I invite the attentionof the committee to the facts of thecase 
as they have been heretofore presented to you. The 320,000,000 of pounds of wool, 
being the clip of 1883, have yielded to the producer this year an average of 4 
cents less per pound than was received for the clip of 1882. Why ? Because the 
taritt' of 1883 fails to secure the home market to the producers and they are driven 
to this reduction in price in order to prevent importations, and unless they re¬ 
ceive relief by legislation the producers will be compelled to make similar reduc¬ 
tions from time to time,until finally they are driven to a choice either to continue 
in the production of wool at a price that is not remunerative or to gradually di¬ 
minish and finally abandon the business. Surround this question by whatever 
figures and estimates you may,the simple fact remains as it is here stated. Hence 
the legislative authority of the United States must say whether they will suffer 
this industry to languish, decrease, and in certain places, notably Pennsylvania, 
We.st Virginia, Ohio, and Wisconsin, perish,or restore the tariff of 1867 and leave 
the wool-growers of the United States to the privilege of supplying the wool 
which the protected manufacturers consume. 

I proceed to consider some of the other reasons given by the manufacturers to 
establish the proposition that the wool tariff of 1867 ought not to be restored. The 
president of the late Tariff Commis.sion is reported to have said in a defense of 
the action of the last Congress that “The low condition of wool-growing in 
Ohio, the principal complaining State, is due to the competition in domestic 
territorial wools, and not to importation.” I am unable to see how so intelli¬ 
gent a gentleman could have fallen into such grievous error. There is no wool 
grown in the Territories that competes with f3hio wool. Oliio wool, for certain 
purposes (by Ohio wool 1 mean that classification of wools which embraces 
those of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Michigan, and other central States) is the 
be.st wool in the world. It has no equal anywhere, and in the Territories it has 
not even a pretended competitor. 

The States above named have expended most freely in the production of a su¬ 
perior quality of wool, and they were stimulated to such action by their belief 
in the beneficial effects in the act of 1867, and that the provisions of such act 
would be left undisturbed. They are prepared to keep their sheep in a uniform 
t:ondition of flesh throughout the entire year, to house them when necessary for 
their protection from the severity of the weather, and to sustain them by a steady 
and judicious feeding. These are the elements which contribute to produce a 
wool of so strong a fiber that it is superior to any other wool in the world. The 
same sheep transferred to the Territories yield a tender, sometimes called a rot¬ 
ten, fiber, and although they are treated with the best care which intelligent hus¬ 
bandry can afford, yet it is impossible to bring their wool to such a standard as 
that it will favorably compare with the fine wools of Ohio. I am prepared with 
samples, which in due time I will hand to the committee, illustrating the state¬ 
ments I have here made. 

The wool which most nearly approximates that which is classified under the 
name of Ohio XX’and Ohio XXX is grown in Australia, of which also there is 
a sample present. This Australian wool is but a poor substitute for the wools 
of Ohio, Pennsylvania, &c., and in a scoured condition the domestic Ohio wool 
is always preferred to the best Australian production. 

To verify the argument hei'e made, I produce a letter from Justice, Bateman 
A Co., who ai’e prominent wool commission merchants of Philadelphia, and 
by the permission of the writers I make use of the same : 

122 South Front Street, Philadelphia, February 7,1884. 

' Dear Sir : We have been requested by Mr. David Harpster to furnish you 
amples of wool showing the difference between Territorial wool and Ohio XX, 
and we send them as follows: 

Sample No. 1 is showy XX Ohio, well bred and sound in fiber, selling at 42 
cents here. 

Sample No. 2 is the same wool from Ohio sheep driven into the Western Ter¬ 
ritories, selling at 22 cents here. 

This latter wool has had the be.st care and attention in the Territories, but ow¬ 
ing to the alkaline soil, or from some unknown cause, the Territorial wool is 
weak and tender in fiber. Owing to the reduction of duties on wool,wool-grow¬ 
ing in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, where avooI like our sample No. 
1 is raised, is likely to be among the things of the past. This cla.ss of wool is 
much needed for the manufacture of worsted yarns. Large amounts of machin- 
erv for this purpose have been established in Philadelphia, but unless this wool 
can be raised in Ohio they will get other but less suitable from South America 
and Au.stralia. The woofs of the best blood after transfer to the Territories be- 


14 


come rotten and tender in fiber and wholly unfit for worsted purposes, Sam pie 
No. 2 represents the wools transferred to the Territories. They will makesoine 
kinds of clothing, as they have fulling properties, but they are not strong. For 
worsted purposes, as above stated, they ^re wholly unfit. 

Sample No. 3 is Australian. This wool is suitable for worsted purposes, al¬ 
though not as well adapted to it as wool like sample No. 1, Ohio wool, but if Ohio 
wool can not be had, American manufacturers will have to fall back on the 
foreign article like sample No. 3. 

Yours, truly. 


Mr. Columbus Delano, 

1600 Thirteenth street, Washmgton, D. C. 


JUSTICE, BATEMAN & CO. 


A second letter from the same parties, dated February 0, giving me leave to 
use the former letter, has been received, and from it I desire to make a few 
quotations: “The wools suitable to supply the wants of this machinery are 
raised principally in the above sections (Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, 
Ate.). If wool-growing ceases to be profitable on high-priced lands, it will be 
transferred to the Western Territories, which do not produce wools of sufficient 
strength and fiber to answer for worsted purposes, and the manufacturers of 
worsted yarn will be compelled to import wool or close their mills. This event 
of course takes place when wool-growing in the old wool-growing sections be¬ 
comes among the thing of the past. AVe do not know whether it is the feed or 
the alkaline soil or what condition it is that unfits Territorial wools owing to 
weakness of fiber from ever being used, but the fact is well known. 

^ # # 

“As the AVestern Territories are hardly likely to be plowed down and farmed 
and cultivated grasses produced, there is no reasonable expectation that they 
will grow the wools suitable for combing purposes which are now raised in the 
old wool-growing sections. There is no fine wool in the world equal to the 
high-bred XX and XXX Ohio, Pennsylvania, and AA^est A^irginia fleeces for 
strength of fiber; the Australian wools come next, and though they are not so 
strong, they are used largely by the American manufacturers, because they are 
cheaper than the Ohio wools; but at the .same price in a scoured condition the 
manufacturers would always prefer the finest Ohio wools. Any material reduc¬ 
tion of the duties on wool will have a tendency to make the raising of it un¬ 
profitable in the States named above, as manufacturers, in order to compete, 
must buy their avooI at lower prices. 

“ The wool-grower and the woolen manufacturer are both interested in pro¬ 
tection on both wool and goods. The American wool-grower depends upon the 
American woolen manufacturer for his market. American wool has been ex¬ 
ported and tried both in England and France, but it was found better to pay re¬ 
turn freight than to accept the best price obtainable in foreign markets.” 

Another error in the article before alluded to is contained in the following 
words: 

“The total importation of clothing-wools, the competing foreign wools, in 
1880, was 26,785,171 pounds, while Ohio has had to contend against an increased 
production of wool in the newer States from 1870 to 1880 of 101,000,000 pounds.” 

Here is the same error in fact reasserted under different circumstances. This 
paragraph admits that in 1880 there was 26,000,000 pounds of clothing wool im¬ 
ported which competed with wools grown in Ohio, Pennsylvania, AVest Vir¬ 
ginia, &c. But looking further at the article from which those quotations are 
made we find the same author asserting as follows: 

“The only wools now imported ai-e for exceptional and peculiar purposes, 
wools having qualities not found or not so perfectly found in domestic wools; 
carpet wools, none of which are grown or can be grown profitably here ; super¬ 
fine electoral wools for the highest face-goods; Flnglish combing wools, when 
as in 1880 there was a fashion for coarse fabrics; long and fine merino combing 
wools, produced here as yet in limited quantities, for soft ladies’ fabrics which 
have recently come into fashion.” 

I am unable to understand how the author justifies himself in asserting that 
the low condition of wool-growing in Ohio is due to the competition in domes¬ 
tic Territorial wools, when he admits in another paragraph that in 1880 nearly 
27,000,000 pounds of clothing wools were imported; nor do I exactlv .see how 
these two statements are consistent with the paragraph last stated, wherein he 
says that “ the only wools now imported are for exceptional and peculiar pur¬ 
poses,” &c. 

There is one other paragraph in the article referred to to which I wish to in¬ 
vite attention. It is in these words: 

“Although we may iniport limited supplies of foreign wool, the ampledome.s- 
tic supply regulates the cost of such raw material as we may import.” 

In this proposition there is a subtle error, which can not'be concealed when 
exposed to criticism. How can an “ ample domestic supply regulate the cost of 


15 


importations,” provided the foreign article can be imported without duty, or 
under such low duty as to permit its sale at a price so low as to render the pro¬ 
duction of the domestic article unremunerative ? The proposition is clearly 
untenable and palpably erroneous. In fact, the very reverse is true, as I think 
all must see, namely: That a market which permits'an article to be imported 
duty free or with a nominal duty will be regulated by the price of the imported 
product ; and the price of a domestic article must be regulated by the cost of 
that which is imported ; and a reduction in the price of the domestic article is 
necessary to prevent or limit importation. Therefore, nothing can save the 
wool-growers from this reduction in price which they have endured during the 
year 1883 except the restoration of duties that will enable them to command the 
home market; otherwise the abandonment of the industry must inevitably fol¬ 
low. 

A .—Statement showing for the United States the number of flocks of sheep, exclusive 
of those on public-land ranches, the figures being furnished by Mr. Jacob R. Dodge, 
statistician Department of Agriculture. 

Alabama,. 23,879 

Arizona. 35 

Arkansas. 20,595 

California. 4,326 

Colorado. 406 

Connecticut.. 3,194 

Dakota.:. 1,819 

Delaware. 1,986 

District of Columbia. 

Florida. 1,001 

Georgia. 25,514 

Idaho.. 128 

Illinois. 39,803 

^ Indiana. 54,069 

Iowa. 17,220 

Kansas. 3,804 

Kentucky. 60,598 

Louisiana. 5,449 

Maine. ’ 34,132 

Maryland. 10,498 

Massachusetts. 3,488 

Michigan. 62,119 

Minnesota. 24,208 

Mississippi. 15,466 

Missouri. 63,990 

Montana. 137 

Nebraska. 2,119 

Nevada....-. 97 

New Hampshire. 11,206 

New Jersey. 5,822 

New Mexico. 814 

New York. 75,523 

North Carolina. 52,541 

Ohio. 93,984 

Oregon. 4,605 

Pennsylvania. 72,425 

Rhode Island. 790 

South Carolina. 10,049 

Tennessee. 62,924 

Texas. 8,390 

Utah. 2,a)l 

Vermont. 16,573- 

Virginia. 32,494 

Washington..... 1,067 

West Virginia. 30, 9(J9 

Wisconsin. 58,487 

Wyoming. 44 


Total United States. 


1,020,728 





















































1 () 


The United States. 

SHEEP AND \VOOL. 


States and Territories. 


Total 

sheep. 


Sheep 
on farms.* 


Ranch 
and range 
sheep. T 


Wool, t 


The United States. 

Alabama. 

Arizona. 

A rkansas. 

California. 

Colorado. 

Connecticut. 

Dakota. 

Delaware. ... 

District of Columbia. 

Florida. 

Georgia. 

Idaho. 

Illinois. 

Indiana .. 

Iowa.."1. 

Kansas. 

Kentucky. 

Louisiana. 

Maine... 

Maryland. 

Massachusetts. 

Michigan. 

Minnesota. 

Mississippi. 

Missouri. 

Montana. 

Nebraska. 

Nevada. 

New Hampshire. 

New Jei’sey. 

New Mexico. 

New York. 

North Carolina. 

Ohio. 

Oregon. 

Pennsylvania. 

Rhode Island. 

South Carolina. 

Tennessee. 

Texas. 

Utah. 

Vermont. 

Virginia. 

Washington. 

West Virginia. 

Wisconsin. 

Wyoming. 

Indian Territory. 


Number. 
42,192,074 


Number. 
35,192,074 


347,538 
466,524 
246,757 
5,727,349 
1,091,443, 
59,431 
85,244 
21,967 


105,681 
527,589 
117,326 
1,037,073 
1,100,511 
455,359 
629,671 
1,000,269 
135,631 ; 
565,918 
171,184 ! 
67,t)79 ! 
2,189,389 I 
267^598 

287.694 
1,411,298 

279,277 
247,453 I 

230.695 I 
211,825 ! 
117,020 

3,938,831 
1,715,180 
461,638 
4,902, 486 
1,368,162 
1,776,598 
17,211 
118,889 
672,789 
3,651,633 
523,121 
439,870 
497,289 
388,883 
674,769 
1,336,807 
450,225 
55,000 


347,538 
76,524 
246,757 
4,152,349 
746. 443 
59,431 
30,244 
21,967 


56,681 
527,589 
27,326 
1,037,073 
1,100,511 
455,a59 
499.671 
1,000,269 
135,631 
565,918 
171,184 
67,979 
2,189,389 
267,598 

287.694 
1,411,298 

184,277 
199,453 

133.695 
211,825 
117,020 

2,088,831 
1,715,180 
461,638 
4,902,486 
1,083,162 
1,776,598 
17,211 
118,889 
672,789 
2,411,633 
233,121 
439,870 
497,289 
292,883 
674,769 
1,336,807 
140,225 


Number. 
7,000,000 


390,000 


1,575,000 
345, (XK) 


Pounds, g 
155,681,751 


55,000 


762,207 
313,698 
557,368 
16,798,036 
3,197,391 
2;30,133 
157,025 
97,946 


49,000 

’ooioot) 


130,000 


95,000 
48,000 
97, (XK) 


1,850,000 


285,000 


1,240,000 
290,000 


96,000 


310,000 

55,000 


162,810 
1,289,560 
127,149 
6,093,066 
6.167,498 
2,971,975 
2,855,832 
4,592,576 
406,678 
2, 776,407 
850,084 
299,089 
11,858,497 
1, a52,124 
7:34,643 
7,313,924 
995,484 
1,282,656 
655,012 
1,060,589 
441,110 
4,019,188 
8,827,195 
917,756 
25,003,756 
5,718,524 
8,470,273 
65,680 
272,758 
1,918,295 
6,928,019 
973,246 
2,551,113 
1,836,673 
1,389,123 
2,681,444 
7,016,491 
691,650 


* Exclusive of spring lambs, 
t Estimated, 
j Spring clip of 1880. 

gNot including the following items, the result of special investigation; Texas 
and California fall clip of sheep reported on farms, 13,0(X),000 pounds; wool of 
other (ranch) sheep, 34,(X)0,000 pounds; pulled wool and fleece of slaughtered 
sheeo, 38,0(X),000 pounds, making an aggregate of 240,681,751 pounds 








































































































FITZ-JOHN PORTER. 


SPEECH 


OP 


HON. JOHN A. LOGAN, 

OF ILLINOIS, 


IN THE 


SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 


Thursday, March 13, 1884. 


WASHINGTON. 

1584. 


A y 







ZfCUt 



t 


• ^ 
















’ ^ i' ■ ' . 



« 


*: ■\V." 




’■r 


' *■ 


- . ■ rf|^ ■ . g A-. ■ ' ■■ .? 

^.•- .;■-; V . IP ^ ■ •■i-- ■• - c-Q- 





•. Ai * 


• * • . r. 

'.■ . V* •• ■* ■ 

i . V 




1 -w 

'V: 






#» rto jM$*' V-T ^ ♦ ** - - '*■»%'< 

VTiSuC' ■• *" ' .'i'’’ » .t* 


» •• 

• » 


■'-4 ?! ‘ . .'.V-' ■'' 






t : 




'■' ' s.-,> • ■ JV,';V‘’ -.J'* . .iifeiV* f--ii<,At>, 1* ■''":!!'t\,_,i.' ''(ii 

-,> .? : ' A*.': .-.-»•%# •• jW i 

- 5 ^ ,A- ^ ■. ■. ■ ‘ '“t^ *■ 

-■• ■-f 4--' 5e-;v.. ,-'. ,a’^ ■4»<« 




M 




1^ ';- '^'^,J.>'.. ' K '*''^V': ; A-j 

... ^. .V. 1 ^ . ' 


< >. 





V ..M '''!/. .•; ;-.i, ■ 

■', ,T. 5 -w, “L* L'^ ‘ •. • • • > » L *■' '*■ I ^ -' 

1 '^.:t .. '%' '■ .« '3 

i. u * . ' v •* t. * ' . 'Vt' r7 




,, Ww', “t-A'.'- A ;•^.■l.,:,vi-' ->■ '. 

w v^ * r. •• 


r-^\ 

V r 





K . 


.'•P* 

I 



I t . 1; • FT^ ^ -■-•* ' : 4* _ 

'vA.. -, '■■ jfiuA .' HH 

Mm .M 

K. ’: /» j.j . A 


i'l > 






’ • / ' T 

• - I ^ V • 7* ' 


A..,.; .:'i . r-VV,. •^;i>:,, 

‘ • 1 - i‘»' ^'' f 

.-. of. 


.•?:i 





I * v’"V k 

. ^ i 1 


■il-'’' 1 





fj- 




SPEECH 


OF 

HON. JOHN A. LOGAN. 


The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, liaving under consideration the 
bill (H. R. 1015) for the relief of Fitz-John Porter— 

Mr. LOGrAN said: 

Mr. President : In 1865, when war had ceased, when our citizens 
were no longer aroused by the distant rumbling of artillery, when blood 
had ceased to flow, and the good women of our country, as ministering 
angels, had ceased to smooth the brow of the weary and wounded sol¬ 
dier, when all breathed freely once more, we then had reason to sup¬ 
pose that all things necessarily connected with the prosecution of the 
war against rebellion would remain undisturbed; and that all proceed¬ 
ings on the part of those in charge of national aflairs which had been 
conducted in accordance with the laws and the Constitution were set¬ 
tled forever upon principles of equity and justice. 

. In the prosecution of the war against treason they believed they were 
preserving to future generations a great government, and that all nations 
of the earth might receive beneflcial lessons from the course pursued 
by those who had maintained the national unity and supremacy. We 
did not believe that the history as it was then honestly made would be 
reversed, that the judgment of courts fairly, legally, and honestly 
entered would in after years find a Congress that would set them aside 
and rewrite the history of the trial; not only rewrite it, but write 
it down against those who preserved the Government and in favor of 
those who failed at a perilous moment, that, too, at a time when all the 
power and the patriotism should have been combined for the purpose 
ol producing one grand result for the benefit of mankind. 

TRIED BY A LEGALLY CONSTITUTED COURT. 

Turning back the wheel of time to 1863 we find the trial of Fitz-John 
Porter by a legally constituted court for the disobedience of orders law¬ 
fully issued to him by his superior and commanding officer. In that 
trial forty-five days were consumed and many witnesses were heard. 
The court determined the case against him and dismissed him from the 
service of the United States. That court was composed of nine officers, 
a part of whom were learned in the law, and a majority of them learned 
in military science. That sentence was approved by the then President 
of the United States. 

But, sir, what is the scene presented to the American people to-day? 
It is not the trial of an officer for failing to perform his duty during a 
battle or for tailing to observe an order issued by a superior officer. No, 
sir; but it is the trial before the Congress of the United States in 1884 
of the court that condemned this man; it is the trial of the President 
who signed the verdict, it is a trial of the living and the dead who per¬ 
formed their duties on that occasion. 







4 


PORTER APPEARS AS A PROSECUTOR AGAINST THE CCKJRT. 

Talk about this being a trial of Fitz-John Porter. Sir, he has been 
tried and convicted and twenty years have passed, but to-day he appears 
as a prosecutor before the Congress of the United States, against a court 
legally authorized, and against the martyred President of that time. It 
is the trial of those who are living; it is the trial of the graves of those 
who are dead with a charge that they dealt unjustly by him; that they 
dealt with prejudice against him; that they violated the laws in their 
verdict; that they misconstrued the evidence; that they rendered an u n- 
just and an unjustifiable decision against him. These are the questions 
that we are called upon to-day to determine. 

In deciding a question like this it would seem at least that it should 
be examined fairly, impartially, and be understood according to the 
facts and the evidence on that trial, without either prejudice against 
those who tried or prejudice in favor of the man who was tried. 

We find, however, on one side of the Chamlier a solid vote in favor 
of this bill. Without desiring to criticise the vote of any one, I hope I 
may be, pardoned, however for making one remark. It is perfectly nat¬ 
ural that when those who engaged in rebellion against a great Govern¬ 
ment like this failed of success and had themselves been pardoned by 
the Government should, without any examination of the evidence in the 
case whatever, feel a sympathy for those who had been during the war 
dismissed the service of the United States. Why ? Because they would 
naturally sympathise with them and say, “ I have been forgiven, there¬ 
fore I forgive everybody else for any dereliction during the war, no 
matter whether they were criminally guilty or not, especially when 
they were convicted for not marching or fighting against us.” 

I can understand the sympathy that exists on that side of the Cham¬ 
ber for this man, but let me say that sympathy ought not to go to the 
violation of a great principle that underlies the very structure of our 
Government, and the regulating of the armies of the United States, 
their discipline and organization. 

APPLY THE EVIDENCE. 

I desire, however, to discuss this questiou first from a legal stand¬ 
point, applying the evidence thereto, and then ask the question whether 
any Senator in this Chamber, taking the whole case as it stands to-daiiy, 
can lay his hand upon his heart and conscientiously say, ‘ ‘ I am acting 
according to the law and according to the fiicts of the case ’ ’ in voting 
to restore Porter? 

First, what is the law in reference to the obedience of orders ? A 
portion of it was read by my friend from Nebraska [Mr. Manderson] 
but I will read the law as it has been laid down in works that are re¬ 
ceived as authority both in England and America, in fact all over the 
civilized world, for the same principles apply ever^'^where so far as this 
question is concerned. You will find in the authority quoted by the 
Senator from Nebraska known as De Hart the same language that he 
read, which I quote. De Hart says this as a rule laid down in military 
law: 

Hesitancy in the execution of a military order is clearly, under most circum¬ 
stances, a serious offense, and would subject one to severe penalties ; but actual 
disobedience is a crime which the law has stigmatized asof the highest degree, 
and against which is denounced the extreme punishment of death. (De Hart, 
p. 165.) 

The same author says further : 

“In every case, then, in which an order is not clearly in derogation of some right 
or obligation created by law, the command of a superior mu.st meet with unhes¬ 
itating and instant obedience.” So vital to the military systeim is this subordi- 


i} 

nation of will and action deemed, that it is secured by the most solemn of human 
sanctions. Each officer and soldier, before entering the service, swears that he 
“ will observe and obey the orders of the officers appointed over him.” 

Pendergrast lays dowu the law relating to ofihcers of tlie army in his 
revised edition in the following language: 

The duty of military obedience to the commands of superior officers is most 
fully recognized by courts of law; and it has been held that disobedience never 
admits of justification ; that nothing but the physical impossibility of obeying an 
order can excuse the non-pei*formance of it; and that when such impossibility is 
proved, the charge of disobedience falls to the ground. The learning on this sub¬ 
ject is to be found in the great case of Sutton vs. Johnstone (first Term Reports, 
548), which was an action by Captain Sutton, of His Majesty’s ship Isis, against 
Commodore Johnstone, for arresting and imprisoning him on charges of mis¬ 
conduct and disobedience to orders in the action Avit'i the French squadron under 
M. Suflfrein, in Ponto Praya Bay, in the year 1782; and there the two chief-jus¬ 
tices, Lord Mansfield and Lord Loughborough, laid down the law in the follow¬ 
ing terms: 

” A subordinate officer must not judge of the danger, propriety, expediency, or 
consequence of the order he receives; he must obey; nothing can excuse him 
but a physical impossibility. A forlorn hope is devoted ; many gallant officers 
have been devoted; fleets have been saved and victories obtained by ordering 
particular ships upon desperate services, with almost a certainty of death or 
capture.” ' 

Mr. Pendergrast, in his citation, makes the reservation, always under¬ 
stood, that the order given is not manifestly and clearly illegal. 

The General of the American Army (Sherman), in referring to this 
principle of obedience to orders in action (24th February, 1870), re¬ 
enunciated the rule laid down by the two eminent lord chief-justices. 
He says: 

The stronger the force of the enemy present at the time the officer received 
the orders, the greater the necessity for him and his troops to pitch in, even if 
roughly handled, to relieve, pro tanto^ the other forces engaged. 

That being the law I defy any one to show that this has not been the 
rule since armies have been organized and since battles have been 
fought. It being the law that an order must be obeyed unless there 
is a physical impossibility to obey, the question before the court-martial 
was, what is the statute law of the United States in reference to punish¬ 
ment for disobedience of orders ? You find that article 9 of the Articles 
of War as read yesterday afternoon by my friend from Iowa [Mr. Wil¬ 
son] is in the following language: 

Any officer or soldier who shall strike his superior officer, or draw or lift up a 
weapon, or offer any violence against him, being in the execution of his office, 
on any pretense whatsoever, or shall disobey any lawful command of his supe¬ 
rior officer, shall suffer death, or such other punishment as shall, according to 
the nature of his offense, be inflicted upon him by the sentence of a court-mar¬ 
tial. 

The court-martial in examining the case find, first, what is the gen¬ 
eral law regulating armies; in other words, what is the common law 
governing the case? In the second place, what is the statute law of the 
United States in reference to the obedience of orders? It is that a law¬ 
ful order from a superior officer must be obeyed. Its disobedience car¬ 
ries with it the penalty of death. 

THE QUE.STION BEFORE THE COURT-MARTIAL. 

What had the court-martial that tried Fitz-.Iohn Porter to examine? 
What question was before them at the time they were organized for his 
trial ? It was this: Did Fitz-John Porter receive a lawful order? No 
one has ever questioned that proposition. If he received a lawful order 
was it a physical impossibility for him to obey that order ? If it was 
demonstrated that it was an impossibility for it to be obeyed, then, as 
a matter of course, they had no right to convict him. It was his duty 
to show that impossibility. Did he do it? Does the evidence disclose 


i 


/ ' 


6 

any such state of facts ? If so, I ask any Senator on this floor to point 
out to me wherein it was impossible for this order to have been obeyed, 

A question has been suggested in the argument here that he did not 
know the necessity for obeying the order strictly. I suppose that no 
Senator who has read the testimony will state that as a fact. Did not 
General Pope send him two orders prior to the 6.30 order of the 27th 
of August notifying him that the enemy was in a certain position and 
that he must be there as speedily as possible ? He had received two 
orders prior to that giving him notice of the position of the enemy and 
requiring him to move as rapidly as possible. 

WHY GENERAL. POPE ISSUED THE ORDER. 

The first proposition is to examine this case fairly, so that no one shall 
be deceived in reference to it, and to understand that General Pope issued 
not only a proper order but one based upon good reasons at the time. It 
has been said that Pope managed the campaign badly; that the order 
was issued without good reasons; that there was no necessity for this 
man Porter being there the next morning; that the necessity disappeared 
when he arrived. For the purpose of understanding properly this ques¬ 
tion as we go along let us examine the reasons that prompted General 
Pope to issue the order. You will find on page 13 of the sworn testi¬ 
mony before the court-martial this statement by Pope: 

General Hooker’s division had had a severe fight along the railroad, com¬ 
mencing some four miles west of Bristoe Station, and had succeeded in driving 
the division of General Ewell back along the road, but without putting it to rout; 
so that at dark Ewell’s forces still confronted Hooker’s division along the banks 
of a small stream at Bristoe Station. Just at dark Hooker sent me word, and 
General Heintzelman also reported to me, that he. Hooker, was almost entirely 
out of ammunition, having but five rounds to a man left, and that if any action 
took place in the morning, he would, in consequence, be without the means of 
making any considerable defense. 

Without taking up the time of the Senate to read the evidence which 
has been given to the Senate time and again, I will briefly restate the 
situation as shown by the testimony. Jackson was at Centreville with 
his corps; Hooker’s division was at Bristoe Station engaged in a battle 
with Ewell’s division; Fitz-John Porter was ten miles away that night 
with his corps; Hooker’s division was out of ammunition, there be¬ 
ing but five cartridges to the man. Why was this order issqed? Is 
there a man on either side of the Chamber who understands anything 
about military operations who does not know that it is a part of the 
science of war for every good general to take advantage of such a posi¬ 
tion and try to strike the enemy in detail? It was perfectly natural 
for Pope to expect that his division would be attacked at daylight next 
morning by Jackson, who was only a few miles away at Centre ville, 
before the support would come from the rear. 

POPE DID INFORM PORTER OP THE NECESSITY OP A NIGHT MARCH. 

But it is said that he. Porter, was not sufiiciently advised by Pope, 
and did not see the necessity of a night march. This is not true; he 
was notified both on the 26th of August and on the 27th, prior to the 
6.30 order, so that he was to be ready to move and act quickly. To 
show this I will merely give the two orders mentioned, which are as fol¬ 
lows. They tell their own story: 

Headquarters Army of Virginia, 
Warrenton Junction, August 26, 1862—7 o’clock p. m. 
General : Please move forward with Sykes’s division to-morrow morning 
through Fayetteville to a point two and a half miles of the town of Warrenton, 
and take position where you can easily move to the front, with your right rest¬ 
ing on the railroad. Call up Morell to join you as speedily as possible, leaving 
only small cavalry forces to watch the fords. If there are any troops below, 
coming up, they should come up rapidly, leaving only small rear guard at Rap- 
paha»uock Station. You will find General Banks at Fayetteville. I append be- 


7 


low the position of our forces, as also those of the enemy. I do not see how a 
general engagement can be postponed more than a day or two. 

McDowell, with his own corps, Sigel’s, and three brigades of Reynolds’s men, 
being about thirty-four thousand, are at and immediately in front of Warren- 
ton ; Reno joins him on his right and rear with eight thousand men at an early 
hour to-morrow; Cox, w'ith seven thousand men, will move forward to join 
him in the afternoon of to-morrow; Banks, with six thousand men, is at Fay¬ 
etteville ; Sturgis, about eight thousand strong, will move forward by day after 
to-morrow; Franklin, I hope, with his corps, will by day after to-morrow night 
occupy the point where the Manassas Gap Railroad intersects the turnpike from 
Warrenton to Washington city; Heintzelman’s corps will be held in reserve 
here at Warrenton Junction until it is ascertained that the enemy has begun to 
cross Hedgeman’s River. You will understand how necessary it is for our troops 
to be in position as soon as possible. The enemy’s line extends from a point a 
little east of Warrenton Sulphur Springs around to a point a few miles north of 
the turnpike from Sperryville to Warrenton, with his front presented to the 
east, and his trains thrown around well behind him in the direction of Little 
Washington and Sperryville. Make your men cook three days’ rations and 
keep at least two days’ cooked rations constantly on hand. Hurry up Morell as 
rapidly as possible, as also the troops coming up in his rear. The enemy has a 
strong column still further to his left toward Manassas Gap Railroad, in the di¬ 
rection of Salem. 

JOHN POPE, 
Major-General Commanding. 

Maj. Gen. Fitz-John Porter, 

Commanding Fifth Army Corps. 


This order of Pope on the 26th shows that Porter was thus early 
notified of what was expected. Also the following: 

Headquarters Army op Virginia, 
Warrenton Junction, Augtbst 27,1862 —i o’clock a. m. 


General: Your note of 11 p. m. yesterday is received. Major-General Pope 
directs me to say that under the circumstances stated by you in relation to your 
command he desires you to march direct to this place as rapidly as possible. 
The troops behind you at Barnett’s Ford will be directed by you to march at 
once direct to this place or Weaverville, without going to Rappahannock Sta¬ 
tion. Forage is hard to get, and you must graze your animals as far as you can 
do so. The enemy’s cavalry has intercepted our railway communication near 
Manassas, and he seems to be advancing with a heavy force along the Manassas 
Gap Railroad. We will probably move to attack him to-morrow in the neigh¬ 
borhood of Gainesville, which may bring our line further back toward Wash¬ 
ington. Of this I will endeavor to notify you in time. You should get here as 
early in the day to-morrow as possible in order to render assistance should it be 
needed. 

I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

GEO. D. RUGGLES, 

Colonel and Chief of Staff. 


Maj. Gen. F. J. Porter, 

Commanding Fifth Army Corps. 


Any discreet officer would have expected exactly what Pope did. So 
he says to Porter, “You must come and he here by daylight.” He is¬ 
sued this order and demand that Porter should come by daylight. Here 


is the order: 

Headquarters Army of Virginia, 
Bristoe Station, August 27, 1862—6.30 p. m. 

General: The major-general commanding directs that you start at 1 o’clock 
to-night and come forward with your whole corps, or such part of it as is with 
you, so as to be here by daylight to-morrow morning. Hooker has had a very 
severe action with the enemy, with a loss of about three hundred killed and 
wounded. The enemy has been driven back, but is retiring along the railroad. 
We must drive him from Manassas and clear the country between that place and 
•Gainesville, where McDowell is. If Morell has not joined you send word to him 
to push forward immediately; also send word to Banks to hurry forward with all 
speed to take your place at Warrenton Junction. It is necessary, on all accounts, 
that you should be here by daylight. I send an officer with this dispatch, who 
will conduct you to this place. Be sure to send word to Banks, who is on the 
road from Fayetteville, probably in the direction of Bealeton. Say to Banks, also, 
that he had best run back the railroad train to this side of Ceda'r Run. If he is 
not with you, write him to that effect. 

By command of Major-General Pope. ^ RUGGLES, 

Colonel and Chief of Staff, 

Maj. Gen. F. J. Porter, Warrenton Junction. 


P, S.—If Banks is not at Warrenton Junction leave a regiment of infantry and 
two pieces of artillery as a guard till he comes up, with instructions to follow 
you immediately. If Banks is not at the junction instruct Colonel Clary to run 
the trains back to this side of Cedar Run, and post a regiment and section of 
artillery with it. 

By command of Major-General Pope. 

GEO. D. RUGGLES, 

Colonel and Chief of Staff. 

So it will be seen that two orders prior to that time had been issued 
notifying xhim of the fact that the enemy was in his front, and that 
he must hurry without any delay, and yet it is said that Porter did not 
know this. He did know it, but if he did not it is not for the subor¬ 
dinate officer to know, it is for the officer who issues the order to have 
reason for issuing such an order, and if it is a lawful order it is the duty 
of the subordinate to obey. Oh, but, says the Senator from New Jer¬ 
sey, Porter’s officers told him that there was no necessity for obeying 
this order, that they could get there in the morning early enough. As we 
go along I propose to show that Fitz-John Porter did not intend to obey 
the order. He did not notify his generals commanding his divisions of 
the necessity of this order being obeyed. General Sykes, who was the 
officer that commanded the regulars under Fitz-John Porter, in his evi¬ 
dence before the court-martial testifies as follows: 

Q, . Do you remember whether you were made acquainted with the urgent 
language of the order— 

Speaking of the 6.30 order of the 27th of August, 1862— 

stating that by all means General Porter must be at Bristoe Station by day- 
ightthe next morning? 

Now mark what General Sykes says: 

A. No, sir, I think not; for I am satisfied that if that urgency had been made 
known to us we would have moved at the hour prescribed. 

Showing that this man did not even let the officers commanding his 
divisions know the urgency of his being there the next morning. Gen¬ 
eral Sykes had agreed with him that night to postpone his march in 
obedience to that order, but when he comes to testify he says that if he 
had known the urgency of that order, he would have been in favor of 
obeying it and moving at the time. 

THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES. 

Now let us examine for a moment another proposition. When a man 
is tried for an offense there is always something in connection with the 
circumstances surrounding the case that gives an idea to a jury or to a 
court of his intention. In order, then, to ascertain the intention of this 
man Porter, to show that he did not intend to obey the orders, I call 
the attention of Senators to the letters referred to by the Senator from 
Nebraska [Mr. Manderson], that he wrote to General Burnside be¬ 
fore receiving these orders, and afterward too, showing that at the time 
he had contempt for Pope, and if he obeyed Pope it would be because 
he wjis compelled to do so. No man can infer anything from these let¬ 
ters, other than that he did not intend to support Pope. 

DETERMINATION THAT POPE SHOULD NOT SUCCEED. 

Then, Mr. President, there is a long history in connection with the 
conduct of Porter, but I will not take the time of the Senate to read it, 
though I have order after order issued by General Halleck to General 
McClellan, just across the Potomac, to send Franklin and his command 
to the support of Pope. When he was ordered to send them, when there 
was a necessity for it, he sent back for the reasons, but was compelled 
to send the troops, but when sent they did not arrive, showing that there 
was a combination and determination that this man Pope should not 
succeed. 


9 


Take the conduct of Fitz-Jobu Porter in front of Winchester at the 
beginning of the war, when General Patterson was ordered to move 
and attack General Joe Johnston—just before the first battle of Bull 
Pun was fought and when he had nineteen thousand troops and Gen¬ 
eral Joe Johnston of the confederate side had but nine thousand. He 
was within ten miles, and when he was ordered to attack Joe Johnston 
to prevent him from joining the rebels at Manassas Junction, Fitz- 
John Porter persuaded Patterson, as the records, sworn to, show, to move 
twenty miles to the right under pretense that it was the best move to 
make. So by this move Johnston was let loose and’made his move on 
to Manassas and turned the battle against McDowell. So I charge 
here, and I defy contradiction, that Fitz-John Porter was the cause of 
the loss of the first battle of Bull Run and refused to fight in the second. 
[Applause in the galleries.] 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frye in the chair). No applause 
can be allowed in the galleries, and the Sergeant-at-Arms will be in¬ 
structed to arrest any person in the galleries who hereafter indulges 
in it. 

WAS IT IMPOSSIBLE TO OBEY THE ORDER? 

Mr. LOGAN. Now, Mr. President, let me call the attention of the 
Senate for one moment to the evidence and see whether or not it was 
an impossibility for this order, known as the 6.30 order, to be obeyed. 
The order was issued at 6.30 in the afternoon of August 27,1862, when 
Porter was nine miles away. The order was delivered by Capt. Drake 
De Kay, one of the staff officers of General Pope, at 9.30 p. m. That 
order directed him to start at 1 o’clock precisely and be at Bristoe Sta¬ 
tion at daylight, which was about 4 o’clock. 

I ask what is the necessity for Senators here to say that darkness, 
trees, bridges, or anything else was in the way of Fitz-John Porter? 
Fitz-John Porter did not examine the roads, and there is no evidence 
to show that he did. Fitz-John Porter did not try to clear the roads, 
and there is no evidence to show that he did. He sent two officers to 
Pope and asked Pope to clear the road for him. Sir, it will not do to 
say that a man is excusable for disobeying an order when he does not 
try to obey it. He gave no orders to his commanding officers to move 
at 1 o’clock, he gave no orders for them to be ready to move at 1 o’clock, 
he gave no orders to them to be ready to move prior to 3 o’clock in the 
morning. The evidence of ^ Drake De Kay shows that there were four 
miles of that road from Porter’s camp to where the teams were being 
parked, with no obstruction in the way. He did not attempt to move 
that four miles. The evidence of Frederick Myers, the quartermaster 
in charge, shows that the wagons were all parked out of the way by 2 
o’clock, and the road was clear, and Porter still did not move; in fact 
he did not move until after sunrise the next morning. The head of 
his column touched the road at 4 o’clock, right at his camp, and the 
evidence of one of the officers who was near Porter at that time shows 
that Porter was in his tent, and the sun was up before he mounted his 
horse; and yet Senators say that because he could not obey the order 
was the reason he did not do it. 

Why do not Senators say that he tried to obey the order, as an ex¬ 
cuse ? But they can not say this. He did not, and the evidence shows 
that he did not. If he did not try to obey the order, he certainly dis¬ 
obeyed it. No obedience is disobedience. If there was disobedience 
of the order, I ask any Senator here to-day, no matter on which side he 
may have plumed himself, to tell me what a court-martial could do on 
a trial of a man for disobedience of orders if the evidence disclosed the 
fact that he did not try to obey the order? What kind of a verdict 


10 


would they find? I ask what kind of a verdict could a jury or a court- 
martial find ? They must find, according to their oaths, that he did 
not obey the order. If he did not obey the order, then, as a justifica¬ 
tion for not obeying it, was there an impossibility ? The evidence does 
not show that fact. That being true, then I ask any man how he can 
vote to condemn that court-martial, the President who approved its 
judgment, and the whole country who approved it at that time, merely 
out of sympathy for this man because it is said he has been punished 
suificiently ? 

THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE CONDITION OP THE ROAD PREPARED FOR PORTER. 

Why, sir, I will give the evidence of twenty-one witnesses swearing 
to different points showing this state of facts to be true: that the road 
was open at 2 o’clock in the morning; that four miles of the road was 
open from his camp that bight when he received the order; that he did 
not move until five hours after the order directed him to move; that he 
moved at a time when the wagons were coming out of park, which was 
off the road, into the road; that the road became obstructed not while 
he could have moved, but after the time had expired when he was to 
have been at Bristoe Station. 

General Pope swore the road was in good condition, &c. 

Drake De Kay delivered the order at 9.30. 

OTHER WITNESSES. 

Chauncey McKeever, known as General McKeever, a man well known 
here by nearly everybody, testifies that there was nothing to prevent 
the troops being put in motion on that night of the 27th of August. 

Col. Robert C. Cleary, who was sent by Porter to move the trains 
forward beyond Cedar Run, testifies that a proper force had been sent 
forward to clear the road; that there was nothing to prevent the troops 
from moving that night if a force had been sent to clear the road; that 
when he passed over it there was only a small portion of the road ob¬ 
structed. 

Solomon Thomas testifies that he moved out on the road in the morn¬ 
ing; that they lay thereuntil 9 o’clock on the morning of the 28th be¬ 
fore they were moved forward; that the roads were in good condition 
and when they moved out there was no obstruction. He was part of 
this command. 

General Butterfield testifies that General Porter sent two aids to 
Pope that night, to ask Pope to clear the road for him (Porter); that 
he did not'know the urgency of the order; nor did he know whether 
any attempt had been made to clear the road. 

Captain Duryea testifies that he marched from Warrenton that night 
up to 12 o’clock, and experienced no difficulty whatever in marching. 

Capt. William W. Macy testifies that he marched that night until 10 
o’clock, and experienced no difficulty, and had marched many times 
on darker nights. 

Lieutenant Brooks testifies that he traveled that night from beyond 
Warrenton to Warrenton Junction, from Warrenton Junction to Bristoe 
Station, and from Bristoe Station along to Greenwich; that he had no 
difficulty in finding the road, and that the roads were good. 

General Thomas McCoy testifies that he marched all the night of the 
27th and until 1 o’clock in the morning with his command, and they 
experienced no difficulty in marching. 

Colonel Buchanan testifies that he was at Porter’s headquarters at 3 
o’clock in the morning; that there was no stirring in the camp; thathe 
waited until after sun-up before he could see General Porter; that after 


11 


that time Porter asked him to send a detachment of his cavalry forward 
to clear the road, so that he could march his troops, which was done. 

William E. Murray testifies that he marched with his command that 
night until 10 o’clock; that the roads were dry and in good condition. 

William M. Campbell testifies that he marched that night, finding 
no difficulty in the roads or darkness of the night. 

Maj. William Birney testifies that he marched with his command in 
the direction of Bristoe Sfiition on the night of the 27th; also marched 
again before daylight; that he experienced no difficulty on account of 
the character of the night, or the roads; and that his entire brigade ac¬ 
companied him. 

J. H. Stine testifies that he marched with the whole brigade to which 
he belongeduntil after 9 o'clock at night, and found uo difficulty either 
in the roads or in the darkness of the night. 

Capt. John P. Taylor testifies that he is well acquainted with that 
country; that he was over the road from Warrenton Junction to Bristoe 
Station frequently; that wagons could go on either side of the road; 
that it was an open country, so that troops could move either on or at 
the side of the roads without difficulty. 

The truth is, the evidence does show that there were but two little 
strips of wood from Warrenton Junction to Bristoe Station. It was all 
open field, and the fences had been burned. There was no trouble what¬ 
ever in troops marching either on the road or outside of the road. 

Samuel G. Hill, of Gibbon’s brigade, testifies that his brigade marched 
that night until 10 o’clock; that he was up until 3 o’clock in the morn¬ 
ing, and that the night was clear. 

Major Duvall testifies that he rode from Warrenton to Catlett Station, 
from Catlett Station to Bristoe Station; thence to Manassas Junction; 
that there were wagons in the road, but uo particular obstruction; that 
he traveled from eighteen to twenty miles that night. 

James Haddow testifies that he marched with his command after sun¬ 
down from Catlett Station to Bristoe Station ; that the next morning 
(the 28th) he went from Bristoe Station back to Catlett Station; thence 
to Warrenton with three ambulances, and that they had no material 
difficulty in passing; that they met Porter’s troops on the way. 

Lieutenant Tiffany and N. P. Beach accompanied Haddow and testi¬ 
fied to the same. 

General Jubal Early testifies that he marched on the night of the 27th 
without experiencing any difficulty on account of the night. 

Henry Kidd Douglass, adjutant-general of Jackson, of the confederate 
army, testifies that Jackson’s whole command moved away from Cen- 
treville up to near Groveton with all their brigade trains during the 
night of the 27th. 

General Myers, quartermaster who had charge of the trains, testifies 
that the road was good from Warrenton Junction to Bristoe Station; 
that he parked the trains and kept them going into park, reducing the 
number all the time in the road; that there was a road on either side 
of the railroad; that there was nothing to prevent troops from moving 
that night; that he brought the head of the wagon trains into the road 
at daylight on the morning of the 28th. 

I follow this with the more extended testimony of these witnesses on 
these points. 

The evidence shows not only that ample provision had been made i'or 
the movement of Porter’s troops, but it also shows that the road was a 
good one, that troops passed over it that day, wagon trains passed over 
it that day; that the railroad had been repaired; that trains were run 
out all the way. The evidence shows that there was a road on either 


12 


side of tlie railroad. The evidence shows that these roads were open. 
The evidence shows that it was an open country all the way, except 
one or two little strips of woods that came down beyond his camp, and 
one near Kettle Run, so that the troops could march outside of the road, 
and did so during that day. 

EXCUSES GIVEN. 

Mr. President, what is the excuse given by his friends? It is that 
it was a dark night. I will not take up time in discussing the ques¬ 
tion as to the darkness of the night, except to say that the evidence 
contradicts that statement. Suppose it was a dark night; does that 
make it impossible for men to march? 1 appeal to every Senator on 
this side of the Chamber who was in the Union Army, I appeal to every 
Senator on that side of the Chamber who was in the confederate army 
if they would make such a statement—I would appeal to my friend from 
Kentucky [Mr. Williams]. No matter how he may vote out of sym¬ 
pathy, he knows that the cry that a man can not move on account of a 
dark night when there was a road to eo on is utterly false. 

SOME NIGUT MOVEMENTS THAT WERE MADE. 

I have never desired to give my experience or say what 1 have done, 
but 1 will say now to the Senator from New Jersey, when he del'ends 
Fitz-John Porter for not moving nine miles at night so that he might 
fight a battle the next morning, that the records of our war show that 
I moved ten thousand men one night in a rain where we had to leel our 
way, ay, crossed the Mississippi River at daylight, and marched fourteen 
miles and came onto the battlefield in the midst of a heavy engage¬ 
ment, went into action at once with my men tired—but no matter, the 
soldiers went in with a will and turned the tide and the day was won. 

Tell me that you can not move at night! Why, sir, moving around 
Vicksburg we marched night and day. After the battle of Jonesbor- 
ough—I think my friend who spoke last [Mr. Mandersox] was there— 
we moved to Lovejoy Station. In moving back, when the rain was pour¬ 
ing in torrents, I covered the rear of the Union Army when I could 
see neither road nor path. 

Take the marches at the winding up of the rebellion; take the 
- marches in Virginia at the time Richmond was evacuated; take the 
marches of Sheridan and of Crook; take the marches of the Fifth Corps— 
this same Fifth Corps that Fitz-John Porter commanded and did not com¬ 
mand to fight at the second battle of Bull Run, after he was relieved 
from its command, however, it marched night alter night. The history 
of the rebellion shows that the Fifth Corps marched for five days and 
nights, almost incessantly, helping to fight battles, under a different 
commander. And yet Senators make an excuse for this man that he 
could not attempt even to march that corps, he would not even try to 
obey an order to march, because it was dark I 

LITTLE SCRAPS OF HISTORY. 

Sir, it might not be amiss right here to call the attention of Senators 
to some little scraps of history. We may go far back in the history of 
wars, we may travel back as long as battles have been fought of which 
history gives an account, and we find night marches. Take, for instance, 
the battle of Arbela, fought by AlexandeiAhe Great against Darius. The 
night but one before that battle Alexander made the march in the dark 
to get on the battlefield by daylight. So you may take many others. 
Take the battle fought by Demostlienes at Syracuse. His assault was 
made in the dead of night by climbing around the crags on a pathway to 
the enemy. So, too, you may take the marches of Caius Claudius Nero 
Arhen he escaped from the front of Hannibal and marched by night and 


13 


without ceasing to INIetaurus, and there the battle was fought. Ilis 
troops were hidden in the camp of Livius until the battle commenced; 
they won the battle after night and day marches, and the first that was 
known by Hannibal that Nero had escaped him was when he threw 
HasdrubePs head into his—Hannibal’s—camp. 

Sir, the battle of Waterloo is recognized as a great battle, one of the 
fitteen great battles of the world. The battle of Waterloo was com¬ 
menced in early day, and fought far into the night. The charge that 
was made by Napoleon witli his reserv^e guard on the Txon Duke was 
made after 8 o’clock, and at 9 o’clock Wellington moved with his whole 
line and dispersed and drove the French army from his front. Do you 
tell me that you can not move troops by night ? History is full of it. 
Battles in history show that great victories have been won in the night 
and that great marches have been made in the darkness and gloom of 
the night. 

For the i)urpose of calling my friend’s attention to the difference be¬ 
tween an officer in 1862 and one in 1572 I should like to have read for 
his benefit a little scrap of history found in the second volume of Mot¬ 
ley’s Dutch Republic, on page 414: 

The Secretary read as follows: 

The Scheld, flowing past the city of Antwerp and separating the provinces of 
Flandersand Brabant, opens wide its two arms in nearly opposite directions be¬ 
fore it joins the sea. Between these two arms lie the isles of Zealand, half floating 
upon, half submerged by the w^aves. The town of Tergoes was the chief city 
of South Beveland, the most important partof this archipelago, but South Beve- 
lan<l had not always been an island. Fifty years before, a tempest, one of 
the most violent recorded in the stormy annals of that exposed country, had 
overthrown all barriers, the waters of the German ocean, lashed by a succes¬ 
sion of north winds, haAdng been driven upon the low coast of Zealand more 
rapidly than they could be carried off through the narrow straits of Dover. The 
dykes of the island had burst, the ocean had swept over the land, hundreds of 
villages had been overwhelmed, and a tract of country torn from the province 
and buried forever beneath the sea. This “ Drowned Land,” as it is called, now 
separated the island from the main. At low tide it was, however, possible for 
experienced pilots to ford the estuary, which had usurped the place of the land. 
The average depth was between four and flve feet at low water, while the tide 
rose and fell at least ten feet; the bottom was muddy and treacherous, and it 
was moreover traversed by three living streams or channels, always much too 
deep to be fordable. 

Captain Plomaert, a Fleming of great experience and bravery,warmly attached 
to the King's cause, conceived the plan of sending reinforcements across this 
drowned district to the city of Tergoes. Accompanied by two peasants of the 
country well acquainted wdth the track, he twice accomplished the dangerous 
and difficult passage, which, from dry land to dry land, was nearly ten English 
miles in length. Having thus satisfied himself as to the possibility of the enter¬ 
prise. he laid his plan before the Spanish colonel. Mondragon. 

Tliateourageous veteran eagerly embraced the proposal,examined the ground, 
and after consultation wdth Sancho d’Avila, resolved in person to lead an expe¬ 
dition along the path suggested by Plomaert. Three thousand picked men, a 
thousand from each nation, Spaniards, Walloons, and Germans, were speedily 
and secretly assembled at Bergen op Zoom, from the neighborhood of which city, 
at a place called Aggier, it was necessary that the expedition should set forth. 
A quantity of sacks were provided, in which a supply of biscuit and of powder 
was placed, one to be carried by each soldier upon his head. Although it was 
already late in the autumn the weather was propitious; the troops, not yet in¬ 
formed as to the secret enterpri.se for which they had been selected, were a-lread 5 ’ 
a.s.'<embled at the edge of the water, and Mondragon, who, notwithstanding Ivs 
age, had resolved upon heading the hazardous expedition, now briefly, on the 
evening of the 20th October, explained to them the nature of the service. His 
statement of the dangers which they were about to encounter rather inflamed 
than diminished their ardor. Their enthusiasm became unbounded as he de¬ 
scribed the importance of the city which they were about to save and alluded 
to the glory whi<iih would be won by those who thus courageously came forward 
to its rescue. The time of about half ebb-tide having arrived, the veteran, pre¬ 
ceded only by the guides and Plomaert, plunged gaily into the waves, followed 
by his army, almost in single file. The water was never lower than the breast, 
often higher than the shoulder. The distance to t’ne island, three and a half 
leagues at least, was to be accomplished within at most six hours or the rising 
tide would overwhelm them forever. And thus, across the quaking and uncer- 


14 


tain filime, which often refused them a footing, that adventurous band five houra 
long pursued their midnight march, sometimes swimming for their lives, 
always struggling with the waves, which every instant threatened to engulph 
them. 

Before the tide had risen to more than half-fiood, before the day had dawned, 
the army set foot on dry land again at the vil lage at Irseken. Of the whole three 
thousand only r«ne unlucky individuals had been drowned ; so much had cour¬ 
age and di.scipline availed in that dark and perilous passage through the very 
bottom of the sea. The Duke of Alva might well pronounce it one of the most 
brilliant and original achievements in the annals of war. The beacon fires were 
immediately lighted upon the shore, as agreed upon, to inform Sancho d’Avila, 
who was anxiously awaiting the result at Bergen op Zoom, of the safe arrival of 
the troops. A brief repose was then allowed. At the approach of daylight, they 
set forth from Irseken, which lay about four leagues from Tergoes. The news 
that a Spanish army had thus arisen from the depths of the sea fle^y before 
them as they marched. The besieging force commanded the water with their 
fleet, the land with their army; yet had these indomitable Spaniards found a 
path whic h was neither land nor water, and had thus stolen upon them in the 
silence of night. A panic preceded them as they fell upon a foe much superior 
in number to their own force. It was impossible for’t Zeraerts to induce his 
soldiers to offer resistance. The patriot army fled precipitately and ignomini- 
ously to their ships, hotly pursued by the Spaniards, who overtook and de¬ 
stroyed the whole of their rear-guard before they could embark. This done, 
the gallant little garrison which had so successfully held the city was re-enforced 
with the courageous veterans who had come to their relief. His audacious proj¬ 
ect thus brilliantly accomplished, the “good old Mondragon,’’as his soldiers 
called him, returned to the province of Brabant. 

Mr. LOGAN Here is an instance in 1572 where three thousand 
soldiers inarched three leagues and a half, a distance of over nine miles, 
through an arm of the sea that came up to their chins, during the time 
when the tide was coming in, and they had to make the march by a certain 
time in order to reach the land. They did it, carrying their ammunition 
on their heads and saved the garrison. Yet you tell me that Fitz-John 
Porter with a corps refused to march nine miles at night when there was 
no sea there to overdo w him, but because of the darkness of the night, upon 
a steady, tirm road, and that it was a physical impossibility for him to 
march. Will an American soldier say that he can not do that which a 
Spanish, Walloon, or German soldier could do? Will an American 
soldier say he can not march where a foreigner might march ? Will an 
American soldier say he can not march on dry land nine miles when a 
foreigner marched three thousand men not on dry land but on a slip¬ 
pery bottom where the ocean’s waves came up to the chins of the soldiers, 
and he made that march in the dead of night when darkness was upon 
his army and saved the troops that he went to succor ? In the name of 
all that is under and above the earth will Americans claim that they 
can not perform that which other men can do ? 

Suppose Fitz-John Porter had been ordered to march through water 
four feet deep nine miles that night, he would have said it was a phys¬ 
ical impossibility, and you gentlemen who are voting to relieve him 
would have agreed with him; but here is a man who tells you that it 
was not a physical impossibility, for he did it, says this history. If an 
American Senator Ciin excuse an American officer from marching nine 
miles in the night on a good road, where there are two roads, after hav¬ 
ing read this history it ought to bring a blush to the cheek of every 
American. 

No, sir, it is not because he was convicted in violation of law, it is not 
because he was unjustly condemned. That is not it. The court has 
all parsed away except three, I believe. Lincoln was assassinated; Gar¬ 
field was assassinated. It is easy to denounce the action of the dead, for 
they can speak not; but it is not always well in a country like t his to 
denounce the conduct of good and true men in the performance of their 
duty for the benefit of men who failed to perform their duty. 


15 


SOME RECENT HISTORY. 

1 have a little history here to which I wish to call the attention of the 
Senate. Some who were major-generals of the Army have a history 
themselves. I discover some gentlemen who are very anxious to insist 
in word, speech and vote that this man Porter was improperly condemned 
should look well to their own record. I have the proceedings of fifty- 
one dismissals of officers from the Army copied f^om records of the War 
Department. I will read some of them. They were poor volunteer offi¬ 
cers, that is true: 

Lieut. Henry C. Smith, “for insubordination, disrespect to his com¬ 
manding officer, and disobedience of orders.” He was dismiseed. 

Lieut. James Walton, “absent without leave, and disobedience of 
orders. ’ ’ 

Capt. Henry D. Wishart, of Pennsylvania, dismissed for deserting 
his company during action. “The general commanding regrets that 
he has not the authority to inflict the sentence of death.” 

Senators are putting this on the ground of excuses for people. Here 
is a poor fellow who could not stand the racket and he dodged a little; 
he was dismissed and the general says he regrets he has not the power 
to inflict the sentence of death. 

Seth L. Woodworth, of Illinois, was dismissed for skulking. 

Captain Paulus was dismissed for absence without leave. 

Reuben Platt, lieutenant, was dismissed for “misdemeanor when the 
regiment was marching against the enemy. ’ ’ 

I will not read them all at this time, but will ask to give them with 
my remarks. There are fifty-one cases, all dismissed, and 1 wish to call 
the attention of both sides of the Chamber to the fact that these fifty- 
one officers were dismissed by a commanding general without even giv¬ 
ing one of them a trial. Not one ever had a trial by court-martial, but 
were dismissed peremptorily by order of the general commanding, some 
for skulking, some for absence, some for disobedience of orders, and one 
for disrespect to his commanding officer. That general is a tender¬ 
hearted man, I presume. Would the Senator from New Jersey like to 
know who the general is that dismissed those fifty-one officers without 
giving them even the right to a court-martial. His name is signed to 
this order, and I will read it: 

By order of Major-General Rosecrans. 

I General Orders, No. 30. 

Headquarters Department op the Cumberland, 

Murfreesborough, Tenn., Fd)riiary 2i,lS6^. 

By virtue of the authority delegated to the major-general commanding by the 
Secretary of War, the following-named officers are dismissed the service of the 
United States from the dates set opposite their respective names ; 

Maj.H.C. Rogers, Fourth Ohio Cavalry, from December 25, 1862, for absence 
without leave. 

Lieut. James Ritt, Fourth Ohio Cavalry, from April 1,1862, for absence without 

Lieut. Wellington B. Straight, Fourth Ohio Cavalry, from September 1*2,1862, 
for absence without leave. 

Lieut. John Shade, Fourth Ohio Cavalry, from December 26, 1862, for absence 
without leave. 

Lieut. Adam Kunk, Fourth Ohio Cavalry, from September 6,1862, for absence 
without leave. 

Lieut. Thomas D. Burdsal, Fourth Ohio Cavalry, from September 6, 1862, for 
absence without leave. 

Capt. J. W. Marvin, Third Ohio Cavalry, from January 21, 1863, for absence 
without leave, breaking his arrest, and drunkenness. 

Capt. John Fenfrock, Sixty-fourth Ohio Volunteers, from November 5,1862, 
for deserting his command while on the march. 

Second Lieut. James H. Baty, Fifth Kentucky Volunteers, from January 22, 
1863, for absence without leave. 


16 


Second Lieut. L. H. Albert, Thirty-ninth Indiana Volunteers, from January 
22, 1863, for desertion. 

First Lieut. John W. Scott, Company G, Forty-second Illinois Volunteers, from 
January 11, 1863, for absenting himself without leave and for disabling himself 
by contracting a disease which unfits him for military duty. 

Lieut. Henry C. Smith, Eightieth Illinois Volunteers, from January 22, 1863, 
for insubordination, disrespect to his commanding officer and disobedience of 
orders. 

Second Lieut. James Walton, Ninety-fourth Ohio Volunteers, from January 

22.1863, for absence without leave and disobedience of orders. 

Lieut. A. C. Brown, Tenth Wisconsin Volunteers, from January 23, 1863, for 
repeated misbehavior and absenting himself without leave when his regiment 
was marching to meet the enemy. 

First Lieut. G. W. Riley, Fifteenth Indiana Volunteers, from January 29,1863, 
for having disabled himself by contracting a disease which disqualifies him for 
military service. 

Second Lieut. E. Bierce, Thirtieth Indiana Volunteers, from January 29, 1863, 
for straggling and permitting himself to be captured. 

Capt. B. W. Canfield, One hundred and fifth Ohio Volunteers, from January 

29.1863, for disobedience of orders and gross neglect of duty in allowing his 
train, consisting of thirty-four wagons and one hundred and eighty-four animals, 
under charge of one hundred and sixty-four men, to be surprised and captured 
by scarcely superior force of the enemy, without any resistance onhispart. The 
commanding general regrets his inability to inflict the extreme penalty of the 
law upon one so deserving an ignominious death. 

Surg. H. M. Crouse, Fifty-seventh Indiana Volunteers, from November 9,1862, 
for absence without leave. 

Lieut. Col. Jacob Ruckstuhl, Fourth Kentucky Cavalry, from January 5,1863, 
for absence without leave. 

Capt. Henry Shaffer, Fourth Kentucky Cavalry, from January 5, 1863, for re¬ 
peated absence without leave. 

Capt. Patrick McGowan, Fourth Kentucky Cavalry, from January 5, 1863, for 
repeated absence without leave. 

Maj. W. J. Clift, First Middle Tennessee Cavalry, from January 10, 1863, for 
absence without leave while his regiment was engaged Avith the enemy at the 
battle of Stone River. 

First Lieut. R. H. Shively, First Middle Tennessee Cavalry, from .January 10, 
1863, for absence Avithout leave Avhile his regiment Avas engaged AV'ith the enemy 
at the battle of Stone River. 

Second-Lieut. H. N. S. Shipp, First Middle Tennessee Cavalry, from January 
10, 1863, for absence without leave while his I'egiment AA^as engaged Avith the 
enemy at the battle of Stone River. 

First Lieut. S. L. Gregg, Nineteenth Indiana Batterj^ from October 27,1862, for 
absence Avithout leave. 

Col. O. S. Hamilton, Eighty-sixth Indiana Volunteers, from January 13, 1863, 
for incompetency. 

Capt. John Burton, Fourth Indiana Volunteers, from January 13, 1863, for in¬ 
temperance. 

First Lieut. Henry Week, Seventy-ninth Illinois Volunteers, from January 13, 
1863, for cowardice in the face of the enemy at the battle of Stone River. 

Second Lieut. William C. Willard, Seventy-ninth Illinois Volunteers, from Jan¬ 
uary 13,1863, for coAvardice in the face of the enemy at the battle of Stone River. 

Capt. David Jamison, Twenty-ninth Indiana Volunteers, from January 13, 1863, 
for coAA’ardice and deserting his command in the midst of the battle of Stone 
RiA^er. 

Capt. W. W. Sehuyler, TAventy-ninth Indiana Volunteers, from January 13, 
1863, for cowardice and deserting his command in the midst of the battle of 
Stone RiA’er. 

Capt. S. H. Williams, One hundred andfifthOhio Volunteers, from January 13, 
1863, for drunkenness while on duty. 

Lieut. John Mangold, Ninth Ohio Volunteers, from January 1-5,1863, for absence 
without leave. 

First Lieut. Joseph J. Armatage, Eighty-sixth Indiana Volunteers, from Jan¬ 
uary 15,1863, for abandoning his company in the presence of the enemy at the 
battle of Stone RiA’^er. 

Captain Klein, Seventy-ninth Pennsylvania Volunteers, from January 15,1863, 
for absence without leave. 

First Lieut. E. H. Benedict, Seventy-ninth Indiana Volunteers, from January 

15.1863, for eoAvardice and misbehavior on the battlefield. 

Capt. Duncan C. Reed, Twenty-fourth Wisconsin Volunteers, from January 27, 
1863, for deserting his command while engaged Avith the enemy, on the pretext 
of siekness. 

Second Lieut. Albert B. Forbes, Eighty-eighth Indiana Volunteers, from Jan¬ 
uary 17, 1863, for drunkenness on the field of battle. 

Second Lieut. Jesse Ball, Eighty-eighth Indiana Volunteers, from January 17, 


17 


1863, for tendering his resignation, assigning as a reason that he was tired of the 
service and opposed to the President’s proclamation. 

Col. W. B. Casselly, Sixt 5 ’’-ninth Ohio Volunteers, from December 31,1862, for 
drunkenness on the morning of the 31st December, at the most critical moment 
of the battle of Stone River, rendering him incapable of receiving or giving 
commands, thereby imperiling the safety of his entire regiment. 

Capt. John Watts, Seventy-second Indiana Volunteers, from January 19,1863, 
for disobedience of orders, gross carelessness, and neglect of duty while on 
picket. 

Capt. M. Noble, One hundred and first Ohio Volunteers, from January 21,1863, 
for absence wdthout leave. 

Second Lieut. O. Jj. Peck, One hundred and first Ohio Volunteers, from Jan¬ 
uary 21,1863, for absence without leave. 

Lieut. S. G. Wright, acting assistant quartermaster. Thirty-sixth Brigade, from 
November 21,1862, for signing a false voucher. 

Surg. W. H. Myers, Thirtieth Indiana Volunteers, from November 26, 1862, for 
stealing horses, abandoning his post when regiment was marching in the face 
of the enemy, he being the only medical officer on duty, and absence without 
leave. 

Lieut. G. P. Stiles, Thirty-first Ohio Volunteei's, from February 2,1863, for ab¬ 
sence without leave for more than sixty days. 

Lieut. S. B. Conn, Sixty-fourth Ohio Volunteers, from February 2,1863, for ab¬ 
sence without leave for more than sixty days. 

Second Lieut. Arthur Bennett, Seventy-seventh Pennsylvania Volunteers, 
from February 2,1863, for absence without leave. 

Capt. Henry D. Wishart, Seventy-seventh Pennsylvania Volunteers, from Feb¬ 
ruary 2,1863, for cowardly conduct in the face of the enemy and deserting his* 
company during the action of December 31,1862, at Stone River, under the dis¬ 
graceful pretext of sickness. The general commanding regrets that he has not 
the authority to infiict the sentence of death. 

Lieut. Seth L. Woodworth, Company B, Seventy-ninth Illinois Volunteers, 
from February 2,1863, for skulking in the rear at the beginning of the battle, dis¬ 
obedience of orders, and pretending lameness. 

Capt. M. L. Paulus, Ninety-third Ohio Volunteers, from February 5,1863, for 
being absent without leave and without sufficient cause from December 31,1862, 
to January 3,1863. 

Lieut. Reuben Platt, Ninth Indiana Volunteers, from February 9, 1863, for re¬ 
peated insubordination, absence without leave, and misdemeanor w'hen the regi¬ 
ment was marching against the enemy. 

By command of Major-General Rosecrans. 

C. GODDARD, 

Assistant Adjutant^Oeneral and Chief of Staff. 

Without speaking of any member of the House of Representatives, I 
can speak of the General. When he appeals to this country to reinstate 
Fitz-John Porter, who was tried by a court-martial, who was convicted 
by a court-martial lawfully organized, and the sentence approved by the 
President of the United States. I ask him who appeals ibr the restora¬ 
tion of those fifty-one poor volunteer officers who were dismissed by a 
stroke of his pen without anything on the records as to what they were 
accused of except his own statement ? I should like to see the tender 
heart turned towaid the poor unfortunate volunteer as well as toward 
the man who happened to have been educated at the expense of the 
Government. Who pleads for those men ? Who introduces bills to re¬ 
store those men ? No Senator, no Member of Congress, nobody pleads 
for them. Nobody asks that the tender heart shall turn toward them, 
dismissed without a court, without a trial, by merely the will of the 
commanding officer. Yet we are told that this is all right. They were 
mere volunteer officers. 

HOW to-day’s record stands. 

But, sir, that is about the way matters are moving in this country 
now. There is a class that must feed on the bounty of the Govern¬ 
ment; kicked out of the Army or not, it makes no difference, they must 
be put back and they must be supported by the Government. They 
are asking reinstatement by Congress every day. Why ? Because at 
some time they performed ser\dce. They have been dismissed very true 
(dishonorably), but no difference. 

Sir, there were two millions of men who performed service in this 
Lo-2 



18 


country, volunteer soldiers, privates and officers, and no bill has ever 
passed the Senate to put one of them on the retired-list; and not a vol¬ 
unteer officer has ever been placed there; no matter how badly wounded 
or shattered or torn, it makes no difference. A man has to go through 
the portals of the regular Army to receive the bounty of this Govern¬ 
ment on the retired-list. Whether he be armless, without legs or eyes, 
it makes no difference. If he was a poor volunteer, kick him out ol 
the service by an order, not by a trial, and it is all right; but if a man 
who happened once to belong to the regular Army fails in his duty, dis¬ 
obeys orders, shows his disobedience and his contempt for his superior 
officer, all that side of the Chamber come up in solid phalanx for him, 
and they generally obtain a few allies from our side for the purpose of 
helping them along to reverse history. Men who attempted to destroy 
the Government, when forgiven (and I say this with all due respect-— 
they will not complain, for they did try to destroy the Government), 
come to you, and undertake to reverse history on your side of the case, 
and you rush forward to assist them in doing it, and expect to gain the 
plaudits of the people of this country for so reversing history against the 
Union people of this Government; it is done on the ground of charity. 
Charity for what ? Charity for your country ? Charity for truthful his¬ 
tory ? Charity for a person. Therefore reverse the history of the case, 
turn the wheel backward, cast a stigma upon two dead Presidents, upon 
an honorable court-martial, for the benefit of a man who failed in the 
hour of trial to perform his duty toward his country. If that is the 
course that is going to be j)ursued it will not be long until all the his¬ 
tory of the war will in a certain sense be reversed. 

I for one, no matter what men may say, will follow my convictions 
of right. I am charged with following this man unnecessarily. I fol¬ 
low no man. I have my honest convictions and by my convictions I 
will stand. If I were the only man in this country who would stand 
in the Senate Chamber and defend the name and fame of Lincoln, Gar¬ 
field, and the men who condemned this man, I would say, solitary and 
alone, ‘ ‘ I will stand here in defense of right against a man who tries to 
tear down the reputation of those men in order to build up one for him¬ 
self which he does not deserve. ’ ’ 

THE SECOND BRANCH OP THE CASE. 

Mr. President, I now desire to call the attention of the Senate to the 
second branch of this case, which is in reference to the 29th of August, 
l;:i62, and the orders on that day. I will not go over the testimony in 
full, lor I propose by leave of the Senate to file the evidence in the case 
with my argument to sustain every proposition that I make. I have 
it compiled from the records as sworn to. 

What is the case of the 29th of August ? The Senator from New 
Jersey [Mr. Sewell] commenced his speech by having a letter read 
from General U. S. Grant. If there is any one in this country who 
has a higher admiration for the military genius of General Grant than 
I have, I do not know him. I served under General Grant for three 
years. I went into the xirmy almost at the same time he did. I have 
known him for a great many years. I would not say one word that 
would deprive him of the great reputation that he has justly won be¬ 
fore the American people. I will take his letter as read by the Sena¬ 
tor on yesterday, and I propose to examine the paragraph for myself 
upon which he laid so much stress and see what I can make of it. 

THE BATTLE ON THE 29tH OP AUGUST. 

The controversy in this case on the 29th is about three orders. The 
first order was issued about 6 o’clock in the morning; the second was 


19 


the joint order ; and the third was the 4.30 order, which it is said he did 
not obey, nor, strictly, any of them. On that point the Senator from New 
Jersey makes the same mistake that all persons have made who defend 
Fitz-John Porter for the disobedience of that order. They insist that 
there was no battle on the 29th. If there had been a battle on the 29th, 
then Fitz-John Porter was guilty; but inasmuch as there was no battle 
on the 29th, he could not be guilty of violating a*i order to fight Avhen 
there was no fighting to be done. That is the reasoning 

The proposition is this ; If there was a battle on the 29th, and Fitz- 
John Porter failed to fight when he was ordered to fight, then he is 
guilty; if there was no battle, he is not guilty, as there was no fighting 
to do. Is not that»!.? 

Now, let us see if General Grant does not fall into the very same error. 
What does he say ? 

Until in 1881— ' 

Mark the language, and I call the Senator’s attention especially to it: 

Until in 1881, when I re-examined for myself, my belief was that on the 29th 
of August, 1862, a great battle was fought between General Pope, commanding 
the Union forces, and General Jackson,commanding the confederate forces; 
that you, with a corps of twelve or more thousand men, stood in a position across 
the right flank of Jackson and where you could easily get into his rear; that you 
received an order to do so about 5 or 5.30 o’clock, which you refused to obey be¬ 
cause of clouds of dust in your front, which you contended indicated an enemy 
in superior force to you; that you allowed Pope to get beaten while you stood 
idly looking on, without Raising an arm to help him. With this understand¬ 
ing— 

Now mark the language— 

and without a doubt as to the correctness of it, I condemned you. 

What does he mean by this statement? He means that if there was a 
battle on the 29th and Porter stood there with twelve thousand men and 
did not fight, and did not attempt to fight, he was guilty and Grant con¬ 
demned him ; but since he ascertained that there was no battle on the 
29th he has changed his opinion. That is the whole case as General 
Grant puts it. I will agree with Grant on that proposition. I agree 
right here that if the evidence does not show that there was a battle 
fought on the 29th that I may be wrong so far as the order to attack is 
concerned, and if I cannot show by confederate and Union testimony 
that there was a battle fought on the 29th, and not only that, but by 
the report of the Senator himself, who says in his report that he had 
to change one battalion of his regiment to the position of the oMier on 
account of exhausting his ammunition—that is substantially the lan¬ 
guage of the Senator’s own report—on the 29th, the battle was raging 
so furiously; in this I am not mistaken. 

CONFEDERATE TESTIMONY. 

Now let us see whether I am correct. These gentlemen do not like 
the evidence that was taken before the court-martial. It does not seem 
to agree with their case. They want confederate testimony. Inasmuch as 
they want confederate testimony let me give them a little of it. I bring 
General Lee now to prove my side of the case as I state it. General 
Lee says—I read from his official report: 

Generals Jones aiid AVilcox bivouacked that night east of the mountain— 

That is the night of the 28th; I do not want to consume time in 
reading the wffiole report— 

and on the morning of the 29th the whole command resumed the march, the 
sound of cannon at Manassas announcing that Jackson was already engaged. 

That was at 9 o’clock in the morning. 

Longstreet entered the turnpike near Gainesville, and moving down toward 


20 

Groveton, the head of his column came upon the field in rear of the enemy s 
left— 

That is in the rear of Pope’s left— 

which had already opened with artillery upon Jackson’s ria:ht, as previously 
described. He immediately placed some of his batteries in position, but before 
he could complete his dispositions to attack, the enemy withdrew, not, however, 
without loss from our artillery. Longstreet took possession (position?) on the 
right of Jackson, Hood’s two brigades, supported by Evans, being deployed 
across the turnpike and at right angles to it. 

Now he goes on and gives the description, and winds up with saying: 

While this demonstration was being made on our right a large force advanced 
to assail the left of General Jackson’s position, occupied by the division of Gen¬ 
eral A. P. Hill. The attack was received by his troops with their accustomed 
steadiness, and the battle raged with great fury. 

THE TESTIMONY OP UNION OFFICERS. 

That is the language of Lee. The battle raged with great fury on the 
29th. Now, I can prove it by every report made by Union ofidcers, and 
I have the names of the different ones making the reports, and I will 
give them- 

Mr. EDMUNDS. How far was Porter from that battle at that time ? 

Mr. LOGAN. About two miles to the left. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Then he could have heard the cannon. 

Mr. LOGAN. The evidence all shows that his troops heard the ar¬ 
tillery all day. 

Now let me show you the number of reports of Union officers, and I 
especially call the attention of the Senate to them. They are as follows: 
General Pope, General McDowell, General Reynolds, General Schenck, 
General Robinson, General Grover, General Kearney, General Sigel, Gen¬ 
eral Milroy, General Stahel, Lieutenant Haskins, General Carl Schurz, 
Lieutenant-Colonel Muhleck, Colonel Kryzanowski, and divers other 
Union officers’ reports, and each and every one of them not only show a 
battle but heavy loss on the 29th, and not only that, but I assert the fact 
and will put it in evidence that the battle was desperate and bloody. 
The fight was so severe that the confederate reports show that all the 
field officers of one whole command were lost save two. 

And yet with all these facts before the country and before this body. 
Senators will say there was no battle on the 29th. 

I will now give the names of the confederate officers who made re¬ 
ports of that battle. Here is the report of the Senator from New Jersey. 
He was in the battle—I have quoted it—he says he was out of ammu¬ 
nition and changed one-half his command around in order to let the 
others have a chance, his ammunition being exhausted. The Senator 
knows this to be his report. That was on the 29th. 

Mr. SEWELL. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him? 

IMr. LOGAN. Certainly. 

Mr. SEWELL. There is no question of the fact that there was severe 
fighting on that day. It was by isolated brigades, though; it was not 
a general battle. 

Mr. LOGaN. “Isolated brigades.” Yes, I should say there was 
one isolated command that did not fight at all. [Great laughter. ] But 
you may call it what you please. Sir, you know if you are a military 
man—and I do not doubt the proposition; you served honorably during 
the war—there never was a battle fought yet when all the troops on 
both sides were engaged at the same time, unless it was a mere small 
detachment. There is no man certainly who was in the Army bnt 
knows that battles were all fought by brigades and divisions, one fight¬ 
ing nowand another again, and so on as different movements were made. 
There is my friend who has an honorable record as an army officer [Mr. 



21 


Miller, of California]; he knows that what I say is true. Every m an 
who has served in the Federal or confederate army knows the same 
thing. On the 29th every man you had under Pope except Porter was 
engaged in battle that day, and yet you say it was not a battle, and on 
that ground General Grant says because there was no battle on the 29th 
Porter ought to be excused, but if there was any battle on the 29th he 
‘ ‘ condemned him. ’ ’ 

WHAT GENERAL GRANT’S LETTER PROVES. 

• Now, what does Grant’s letter prove ? It proves exactly what you do 
not want proven. It proves that if there was a battle on the 29th Por¬ 
ter was properly condemned. You agree there was. Therefore he was 
properly condemned. There is the kind of argument that you have 
used in this case from the time it was first before Congress, denying 
» that there was a battle on the 29th when Lee, Longstreet, Hood, Jones, 
Ewell, and Jackson and the whole confederate forces recognize the fact 
and report that there was a severe battle, a severe struggle on that day, 
which is corroborated by your own officers, and the excuse made is that 
there was no fight on the 29th, therefore Porter is not culpable because 
he did not fight, for there was no battle going on. 

If there was a battle on the 29th, Porter was guilty. I said I would 
stake the whole case on that proposition and take General Grant’s letter 
to support my statement; and the very evidence that the Senator from 
New Jersey introduces to support his side of the case when the facts 
are brought to light condemn his friend. 

ORDERS TO POPE. 

On the morning of the 29th, General Porter was lying near Manassas 
Junction; he received a verbal order. Without referring to the date I 
will try to give it correctly, for I do not want to detain the Senate by 
reading it, but I will put these orders in my remarks. I can state them. 
As I said, on the morning of the 29th General Pope sent a verbal order to 
General Porter ordermg him to push as rapidly as pos.sible towards 
Gainesville, that if he did not move expeditiously we would lose much. 
General Porter refused to obey that order because it was not in writing. 
I have a letter from the man that carried that order to General Porter. 
Porter admits in his own statement that he received that order but he 
wanted it in writing. Then General Pope had to give him an order 
in writing. This is the order: 

Headquarters Army of Virginia, 
Centreinlle, August 29, 1862. 

Push forward with your corps and King’s division, which you will take with 
you, upon Gainesville. I am following the enemy down the Warrenton turn¬ 
pike. Be expeditious, or we will lose much. 

^ JOHN POPE, 

Major-General Commanding. 

The object of this order was to enable General Porter with a large 
force to intervene near Gainesville, on the Warrenton pike, between 
Jackson and Longstreet, and thus regain the advantages lost by the re¬ 
treat of King and Picketts early that morning. After that order was 
given in writing Pope issued what is called the joint order—the Mc¬ 
Dowell and Porter order. That order directed McDowell and Porter 
to march in the direction of Gainesville until they moved far enough to 
throw the right down on to the left of the army of Pope and to be in 
po.sition that night, so that if they had to fall back to fall behind Bull 
Pun. 

Headquarters Army of Virginia, CentrevUle, August 29, 1862. 

Generals McDowell and Porter : You will please move forward with your 
joint commands towards Gainesville. I sent General Portei’ written orders to 
that effect an hour and a half ago. Heintzelman, Sigel, and Reno are mov- 


22 


ing on the Warrenton turnpike, and must now be not far from Gainesville. I 
desire that as soon as communication is established between this force and your 
own the whole command shall halt. It may be necessary to fall back behind 
Bull Run, at Centreville, to-night. I presume it will be so on account of our 
sui^plies. I have sent no orders of any description to Ricketts, and none to in¬ 
terfere in any way with the movements of McDowell’s troops, except what I 
sent by his aid-de-camp last night, which were to hold his position on the War¬ 
renton pike until the troops from here should fall on the enemy’s flank and 
rear. I do not even know Ricketts’s position, as I have not been able to find out 
where General McDowell was until a late hour this morning. General Mc¬ 
Dowell will take immediate steps to communicate with General Ricketts and 
instruct him to join the other division of his corps as soon as practicable. If any 
considerable advantages are to be gained by departing from this order, it will 
not be carried out. One thing must be held in view—that the troops must oc¬ 
cupy a position from which they can reach Bull Run to-night or by niorning. 
The indications are that the whole force of the enemy is moving in this direc¬ 
tion at a pace that will bring them'here to-morrow night or the next day. My 
own headquarters will, for the present, be with Heintzelman’s corps or at this 
place. 

JOHN POPE, 
Major-General, Commanding. 

AN EXPLANATION OP THE JOINT ORDER. 

There ought to he an explanation of this order. It is not very en¬ 
tertaining to the Senate to deal with maps, hut I used to have a good 
deal to do with them when I had charge of a corps and also of an army, 
and therefore I naturally take to them. Why was the order given in 
that way? It is very simple when understood, as it may he if any one 
will look at the military situation, and I will explain it in a moment. 

Jackson had moved around from Centreville hy Sudley Springs, behind 
what is called the Independent Railroad, which was a cut, and formed 
his line in rear of the railroad cut, letting his right run up in the direc¬ 
tion of the road that ran from Gainesville to Centre\dlle. Bull Run Creek 
runs down in this direction [indicating]. They were to movefrom Daw- 
kin’s Branch up to Gainesville, striking this turnpike road. The inten¬ 
tion was to strike the turnpike, and the fact that Porter was told to he in 
a condition to fall hack behind Bull Run shows that to he true, because 
on the road that he was then marching he could not fall behind Bull Run 
without traveling clear around to Centreville, but hy passing through 
and letting his right swing over to this road he would be on the turn¬ 
pike road which passed down across Bull Run to Centreville on this 
turnpike. That was the situation, and that is what Pope intended. 
After Porter had gone as far as Dawkin’s Branch, five miles away from 
Gainesville, he says that, se(dng dust, &c., he concluded to stop there. 
I do not give his language, hut that is the substance. He did stop 
there; he staid there the whole day; that is, the head of his column did. 

Mr. SEWELL. Will the Senator allow me a word ? 

Mr. LOGAN. Certainly. 

Mr. SEWELL. The evidence of General Butterfield goes to show 
that he threw a brigade across Dawkin’s Branch, his line deployed, 
and he rode in advance of his brigade to look at the ground, when sud¬ 
denly his brigade was withdrawn, and he found McDowell and Porter 
together. It was on McDowell’s order that it was withdrawn, and he 
says, “Put your troops in here to the right; you are too far out.” 

Mr. LOGAN. If the Senator had just waited a moment he would 
have gotten all the facts and more than he has given. I was stating 
that at Dawkin’s Branch he stopped. That is true, is it not? Mc¬ 
Dowell came up with him at Dawkin’s Branch. They had some con¬ 
versation. He says that McDowell told him to put his troops in here. 
McDowell, he states, said this is no place to fight a battle. McDowell 
declares he did not say so; but that is immaterial. 

Porter said, “ If I put my troops in I will get into a fight. ’ ’ McDow¬ 
ell replied, ‘ ‘ That is what we came here for. ’ ’ 


23 


General Butterfield, of whom you speak, did not take his brigade, but 
he took part of it, "went across the branch into open ground, and he 
says that he expected that an attack would be made, that he looked 
around and his whole regiment was gone, and he was left there by him¬ 
self. He says he does not know how his regiment got away. He does 
not know who ordered it away, and does not know anything about it 
•except that he was left there with one staff officer. 

Mr. SEWELL. Give the rest of it. 

Mr. LOGAN. I will give the whole of it as I go along. General 
Porter went back to Bethel chapel, two miles and a half, or three, to the 
rear of Dawkin’s Branch, at the junction of the roads. There he staid 
the whole day; his corps was lying along that road with their arms 
stacked, and he never moved them one inch. Morell’s brigade was up 
to the front, and he put skirmishers out, and the only order that Porter 
gave to Morell during that day was to deploy a regiment, which he did. 
The next order he. gave was to hide them in the woods, which he did 
all except one battery, that Morell says he could not get in—Hazlett’s 
battery; he could not get it into the woods under cover. That was the 
only order he got until late in the afternoon, after G o’clock in the even¬ 
ing, and Porter says that from the dust in the road he imagined or 
thought that a great force was marching down upon him, and therefore 
he hid his men in the woods, 

I want to take the argument the Senator made yesterday. He said 
the j udicious and soldierly conduct of Porter saved that army from de¬ 
struction; that holding his troops in front of Longstreet kept Long- 
street from moving off against Pope and destroying Pope; holding them 
there so long as he could have them in view. He did not have them 
in view, because he hid his men in the woods so that Longstreet could 
not see them. He says so and the Senator knows it. Instead of hold¬ 
ing them in view to deter Long.street from moving on Pope, he hid them 
in the woods so that they could not be seen, and so let Longstreet move 
on Pope. Not only that, sir, but before I get through, instead of your 
twenty-five thousand troops in front of Fitz-John Porter, I can demon¬ 
strate from the evidence that Longstreet had but six thousand that he 
could haA^e used against Porter. He (Longstreet) neA^er had twenty-five 
thousand troops under him present on that day, and I will prove that 
by Longstreet’s own statement. 

Mr. Porter, he says, obeyed the joint order. He was to go to Gaines¬ 
ville. Porter says, or the Senator says for him, that Porter could not 
fiill over to the right; he could not move to the right so as to join Pope 
on the left. Why does he say that? Capt. James Stevenson, who is 
well known to many Senators here—he is connected with the Geologi¬ 
cal Survey—was a captain in a New^ York regiment. He was sent to 
Porter’s corps for the mail, and he crossed from Pope’s left through 
these A^ery Avoods on horseback with the mail. During that A'ery time 
that Porter says Longstreet had twenty-five thousand troops right in his 
front this man Stevenson rode by himself on horseback and carried the 
mail over to Porter’s corps. One man on horseback could pass through 
these woods unmolested, and Porter was afraid to go in there for fear 
he would be destroyed with his twelve thousand men. 

THE NUMBER OF TROOPS ENGAGED. 

Let us see for a moment how many troops were there. This map 
shows that Longstreet first formed his men on Pageland Lane. Here 
[indicating] was Jackson’s right. Longstreet formed, throwing his left 
around on Jackson’s right. Here was Pope throwing his left up this road, 
the turnpike road [indicating]. Porter, then, by moving here, would 


24 


have struck Longstreet on the right flank; and according to all the testi¬ 
mony and the maps that your own friends hav^e made for you, if he had 
moved forward on t|iat road he would have struck Longstreet on the 
right flank. There is Longstreet’s right flank, and there is the road 
passing up to the right of Longstreet. He could not have moved with¬ 
out striking him on the right flank. If Longstreet had met him he 
must have thrown his left around here [indicating] to face Porter in¬ 
stead of already facing him, as he is said to have been. This statement 
about its being impossible for Porter to pass on to the right of the enemy 
is sheer nonsense. 

Now, let us see if we can find about how many troops were in Por¬ 
ter’s front. I take General Longstreet’s rex)ort. General Lee’s report. 
General Wilcox’s, General Hood’s, General Anderson’s, and see what 
they state. Longstreet on the 29th had (General Wilcox’s brigade, 
Feathertone’s brigade. General Pryor’s brigade) six thousand three hun¬ 
dred men; General Hood (Texas brigade. Law’s brigiule, Evans’s bri¬ 
gade) six thousand three hundred men—they average up very nicely 
according to their statements; I do not know how they got them so 
evenly—General Kemper (Kemper’s brigade, Pickett’s brigade, and 
Jenkins’s brigade) six thousand one hundred men; and General Jones 
(Drayton’s brigade and Toombs’s brigade) six thousand three hundred 
men, making in all twenty-five thousand men. That is the number 
that General Longstreet gives. 

Now, let us examine the testimony for a moment. General Lee says 
in his report that General Anderson’s division came up in the evening 
of the 30th. General Anderson’s division was seven thousand men, ac¬ 
cording to the testimony. They came up in the evening of the 30th, 
and not on the 29th. Now, subtract that from your twenty-five thousand 
and how many have you? Take a pencil and make your figures. The 
Senator says there were twenty-five thousand in front of Porter; we 
have got them down to eighteen thousand. 

Now let us see what General Lee says and what General Longstreet 
says. They say that Wilcox’s division, Kemper’s brigade, Jenkins’s 
brigade, and Evans’s brigade, Hunton’sand Hood’s divisions went into 
action at Groveton at 4 o’clock, in all making over twelve thousand 
men taken from the eighteen thousand men, that went into action at 
Groveton at 4 o’clock. Lee had sent Wilcox’s division, he says in his 
report, over to support Jones. Jones’s brigade was over on the rail¬ 
road, near the Cole house, watching Porter, when he saw some move¬ 
ment made, and that was the same time Porter hid his men in 
the brush. Wilcox’s division was sent to support Jones; but Lee 
says, and so does Longstreet, that the column disappeared imme¬ 
diately. They do not say where, but Porter explains that they disap¬ 
peared in the woods. Then he says he withdrew Wilcox’s Division 
and threw it down to Groveton. There are twelve thousand men with¬ 
drawn from that eighteen thousand and sent to Groveton in action against 
Pope’s left; and Longstreet and Lee both say that they remained there 
until 11 o’clock at night before they withdrew from Groveton. Now 
how many have you left in front of Porter? Six thousand men, and 
that was Jones’s command, and his support—^but six thousand men. 
The evidence shows that Longstreet did not have another man there 
anywhere near Porter, and they were not in his front; they were over 
by the railroad, and that is the only command that Longstreet had any¬ 
where near Porter at 4 o’clock, and during the whole time from 4 o’clock 
until 11 o’clock at night, and at 11 o’clock at night he says they with¬ 
drew to their line, which was at Pageland lane, and not in front of 
Porter, so that Mr. Porter, when he received the order, instead of having 


25 


twenty-five thousand men in his front had but six thousand men, not in 
his front either, but in a position where they could have probably been 
employed against an assault. 

The truth is, Stuart’s report shows, and so does Porter’s report, that 
the dust was thick; and Stuart says the dust was made by drawing brush 
along the road, I have repeated this before, and 1 do not wish to refer 
to it again, but that is the evidence in this case, and the evidence is 
what we must be guided by. 

WHAT PORTER SAID BEFORE THE COURT-MARTIAL AS TO THE FORCES IN HIS 

FRONT. 

In order to sustain what I say about that, suppose we take what Mr. 
Porter says. I want to call the attention of the Senate to this fact. Mr. 
Porter and his friends insist that there w^ere twenty-five thousand men 
in his front and that he knew it, and Pope did not. I believe that is 
the statement. Fitz-John Porter stated to the contrary before the court- 
martial that there must have been from ten thousand to fifteen thousand 
men in his front. Now he says there were twenty-five thousand; the 
Senator says so, and he knew it then, he says; but yet in his statement 
before the court-martial Porter said there must have been from ten to fif¬ 
teen thousand men. How is it that he did not know then that there 
were twenty-five thousand, when he now claims that he did know 
it? If ten thousand, he (Porter) had more men than they had, for his 
morning report showed that he had thirteen thousand men for duty on 
the 29th. Twelve thousand five hundred is the estimate that is given 
by the witnesses. When he believed there were not more than ten or 
fifteen thousand he would not attack. Now, the Senators who tr^^ to 
excuse him say there were twenty-five thousand. When did they make 
this grand discovery? When you come to examine the reports of the 
confederates showing the number of men that they had in battle that 
day at Groveton, it turns out that Longstreet had but six thousand 
men anywhere near where Porter could have got at them at all. All 
the reports agree in this. Wilcox, who was here on duty in the Senate, 
makes the same statement as to the number moved to Groveton at 4 
o’clock. In all the letters that they have written they do not pretend— 
that is dodged artfully—to state where their troops were that day. 

Six thousand men! He did not even know that. How could he 
know anything about it? He was back at Bethel chapel the whole day, 
five miles away from the enemy. 

Mr. SEWELL. Does the Senator want me to answer that question? 

Mr, LOGAN. Certainly. 

Mr. SEWELL. You have a recollection of the Buford dispatch? 

Mr. LOGAN. I have. 

Mr. SEWELL. That covers the ground. 

Mr. LOGAN. Covers what ground? 

Mr. SEWELL. That the troops were there. 

Mr. LOGAN. Where? 

Mr. SEWELL. That they passed through Gainesville. 

Mr, LOGAN. Does that prove that they were in Porter’s front? 

Mr. SEWELL. Certainly. It was the only way they could get 
there. 

Mr. LOGAN. The Senator is an artful man and I like these dodges. 
Now let me show the Senator the map. 

Mr. SEWELL. I know it. 

Mr. LOGAN. Yes, you know it; but I wdll explain it to others who 
do not know it. There is the road [indicating]. Buford Sc^s they 
were marching on down there. Here was Porter over here [indicating]. 


20 


Seventeen regiments of infantry marched through Gainesville at 9 
o’clock, says Buford’s dispatch, but he never said they were marching 
in the direction of Dawkin’s Branch. He said they were marching 
on the pike, and that is the pike down to Groveton; and General Lee 
in his report says that they marched down the pike to Groveton and 
went into battle against Pope’s left; but the Senator will insist on say¬ 
ing they were in front of Porter, while he can not find a scintilla of 
testimony that supports him in such a statement. 

j\Ir. SEWELL. You will find it in General Longstreet’s report and 
his evidence. 

Mr. LOGAN. You do not find General Longstreet saying any such 
thing. General Longstreet says his corps amounted to twenty-five 
thousand men, and I do not doubt that; but in his report he tells us 
that all his corps were in the fight at Groveton except one division. I 
know what Longstreet says. He says that he had twenty-five thou¬ 
sand men in his command, and if this man had attacked him anytime 
after 12 o’clock he would have been terribly abused, but does not say 
his men were on the ground. I have his evidence, and here is his report 
made as soon after as possible, which says that D. H. Anderson came 
up on the 30th late in the day. 

I ask the Senator whether he takes the report of a man made imme¬ 
diately after a battle? Mr. Longstreet and several other gentlemen 
who belonged to the confederate army have tried to make this matter 
as easy as possible for Fitz-John Porter; nobody doubts that. But I 
am taking their reports as they made them, the report of Lee, of Long¬ 
street, of Jackson, and the whole of them, and they all agree that these 
troops were in the battle at Groveton on the 29th and not in front of 
Porter. And will any Senator tell me that the reports of Jackson, of 
Longstreet, of Lee, of Wilcox, of Hood, of Evans, and of all these men 
who were under Longstreet and engaged in battle that day, made with¬ 
in the next few days, are not true, and that Longstreet after loss of 
memory in twenty years shall contradict the whole thing; which, how¬ 
ever, he does not do? No, sir; I defy any man to take the reports of 
the confederates themselves and disprove the statement I have made; 
they prove it, sustain it in every particular. And nowhere in the evi¬ 
dence of any of them do they contradict the fact that the troops I men¬ 
tion were engaged at Groveton on the 29th. 

THE 4.30 ORDER. 

Now let us examine the 4.30 order, which was as follows: 

Headquarters in the Field, August 29—4.30 p. m. 

Major-General Porter : Your line of march brings you in on the enemy’s 
right flank. I desire you to push forward into action at once on the enemy’s 
flank, and if possible on his rear, keeping your right in communieation with 
General Reynolds. The enemy is massed in the woods in front of us, but ean 
be shelled out as soon as you engage their flank. Keep heavy reserves and use 
your batteries, keeping well closed to your right all the time. In ease you are 
obliged to fall back, do so to your right and rear, so as to keep you in close eom- 
munication with the right wing. 

JOHN POPE, 
Major-General, Commanding. 

General Pope was near the right of his line. General Ricketts was 
with him, and kept note of the movement of troops on that day. Gen¬ 
eral IMcDowell withdrew from Porter at about 12 o’clock with his di¬ 
vision, and he went from Bethel chapel up the Sudley Springs road 
until he struck the pike running to Groveton; he took that, and arrived 
there and put his division in battle on the left center. At the time 
he was going into battle, when he reported to Pope, he (Pope) had con¬ 
cluded to make a movement along the whole line and to assault the 


27 


enemy at every point. So he sent an order to Porter then to assault 
and strike the enemy on his right flank or in the rear; that he must do it 
at once, and the men under McDowell moved forward; his whole army 
moved forward. It was about (1 o’clock, when it moved forward, and 
he expected Porter to do the same thing. Instead of that, he (Pope) had 
Longstreet’s whole corps, except Jones’ s division, in his front at Groveton, 
and Porter, lying with his arms stacked for three miles along the road, 
never moved nor did he Are a shot. Was there any excuse for that? 
They say he did not receive the order in time. When did he receive 
the order? He says at 6.30. The Senator said yesterday at 6.30. The 
evidence, however, does not bear him out in that sl^atement. 

I know the fact that when a Senator makes a statement it is some¬ 
times taken against the sworn testimony of the witnesses if it serves 
the purpose, but it does not serve mine so well. The evidence of 
Pope’s aid who delivered that order, the evidence of the orderly who 
went with him, is that it could not have been later than half after 
5 o’clock when that order was delivered. The sun on the 29th day 
of August, 1862, set at 6.36, and he received the order at half past 5. 
But suppose he did not receive it until 6.30. Take that for granted for 
the sake of the argument. He had then nearly two hours of daylight 
in which to have made his assault; and will any man tell me that 
Longstreet was right in his front? If Longstreet was immediately in 
front Porter did not have far to go to strike the enemy, and why did he 
not do it ? Why did not that soldier—whom Senators speak of as being 
a grand soldier—strike the enemy ? It may be very well for Senators to 
say that he was a man of great experience; he was a man of great gen¬ 
ius; he knew more than Pope. That is the argument. Pope was an 
ignoramus and this man was a wise man; and therefore, being a wise 
man, he knew better than to flght when he was ordered to fight, because 
the man that ordered him did not know as much as he did! 

Fitz-Jobn Porter isa man of great imagination, and a man who thinks 
he can overturn the history of the country, and that he does find help 
to do it I agree He finds help on this side that he ought not to find; 
he finds men helping him who ought not to assist, but still they are 
found. 

WHAT PREVENTED THE ASSAULT? 

Now let us see for a moment whether he could have assaulted or not. 
I repeated a moment ago from history the fact that at the great battle 
of Waterloo the last assault made by Napoleon’s guards on the guards of 
the Iron Duke (Wellington), was made after 8 o’clock on the 18th day 
of June, 1815, and there the order was given by Wellington that has 
gone down into history, ‘ ‘ Up, guards, and at them ! ’ ’ And at 9 o’clock 
Wellington formed his line and moved forward and broke the French 
army into pieces; and yet Fitz-John Porter could not move at 6.30, 
when the Senator says that he had his troops up at Dawkin’s Branch 
deployed ready to attack ! Why did he not do it? 

Mr. SEWELL. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him? 

Mr. LOGAN. Certainly. 

Mr. SEWELL. The head of his column was deployed ready for an 
attaek, but his whole troops were not in line, the joint order did not 
contemplate the fighting of a battle at that place, but it contemplated 
going to Bull Eun. He was in a position to hold himself to protect his 
own column on the road and to hold Longstreet there. 

Another item I would call the Senator’s attention to: the twilight 
at Brussels is entirely different from the twilight at Bull Run; it lasts 
about two hours later. 


28 


Mr. LOGAN. If the gentleman would take two hours off, we should 
have it exactly, and in doing that Wellington’s attack would, accord¬ 
ing to the Senator, be an hour after dark. So that does not help the 
Senator’s case. 

I wish to answer the Senator in the same way he tries to answer me. 
He says the reason was that the joint order did not contemplate an at¬ 
tack. That was the order issued in the morning. I am talking about 
the order of 4.30, which directed him to attack at once; but the Senator 
says because the previous order did not contemplate an attack, theretore 
he had no right to obey the 4.30 order. In other words, to illustrate: if 
the rebellion is going on and I am ordered to move on Jackson, Miss., 
from Vicksburg and to be there at a certain time, because the troops at 
Jackson were going to attack, and I meet some troops on the road, I say, 
“Well, I will not fight these fellows, because I am ordered to go to 
Jackson before I fight.” [Laughter.] That is the reasoning of the 
Senator. 

IMr. SEWELL. The Senator drew a comparison between Wellington 
at Waterloo and Porter on Dawkin’s Branch. He is perfectly right 
about the time at Waterloo, but there had been a fight going on there 
all day in open sight, open view. 

Mr. LOGAN. So there had been at Bull Eun since 9 o’clock. 

Mr. SEWELL. There I differ with the Senator in opinion, and I say 
there the Guard were in line and they could not help it. 

Mr. LOGAN. The difference is this; Napoleon’s Guard had not been 
in the battle at all at Waterloo, and they never engaged until 8 o’clock, 
when they were ordered to assault the guards of Wellington. That is 
just the position this man Fitz-Johii Porter was in. They were the 
reserve of Napoleon’s army and had not been engaged in battle, but 
they assaulted at 8 o’clock and Wellington assaulted at 9. The battle 
had been going on the major part of the day, and so had the battle of 
Bull Eun from 9 o’clock in the morning until 9 o’clock at night, and 
yet your friend did not assault! No time in the day was proper for 
him to assault and no part of his column was in action. 

]\Ir. EDMUNDS. You mean that the cannon were still firing at half 
past 8? 

Mr. LOGAN. I mean the battle was still going on at 9 o’clock and 
did not cease until that time. I mean that McDowell’s corps com¬ 
menced its battleat 6 o’clock and continued to 9 o’clock, as the reports 
on both sides show. Assault after assault was made, and yet Porter’s 
Army Corps could not assault but the confederates could. Longstreet’s 
corps could assault at Groveton at 8 o’clock at night, moving down at 4 
o’clock to do it, but we could not do it. Oh, sir, it is a bandbox sol¬ 
dier that must only fight by sunlight. When did Sheridan ever ask 
for daylight, if necessary to save a battle ? 

A FEW COMPARISONS. 

I should like to give a little experience here just for the benefit of the 
Senator. I do not know whether any of my friends on the other side 
were there or not. If they were, they left early; they will remember 
that. At the battle of Eesaca General Thomas E. Woods, the brother 
of J udge Woods, of the Supreme Bench, commanded a division, and J udge 
Woods commanded one of his brigades. They were in my command. 
At 9 o’clock at night at Eesaca, under my orders, General Woods as¬ 
saulted the line of works of the rebels, a curtain running from the fort 
down to the river, and took it when it was so dark that you could not 
see where the line of works was. I sat on my horse and could only 
tell the position of either side by the flash of the guns. 


29 


Talk about being destroyed! I will give you an instance of one bri¬ 
gade at the battle of Baker’s Creek, where thirty thousand of the enemy 
were opposed to two divisions of our troops. One brigade, a small 
brigade at that, under my orders marched two miles down a ravine and 
moved into the rear of those thirty thousand men and opened on them, 
scattered and dispersed them, and we captured much of their artillery 
and nearly as many men as the brigade itself had. Of course it took 
its chances; but it did it. If Fitz-John Porter had performed his duty 
as well as that little brigade did the Army of Virginia would not have 
been depleted as it was on that day. 

THE POSITION PORTER OCCUPIED THAT DAY. 

Having disposed, as I believe at least, of the question of the number 
of troops in front of Fitz-John Porter at that time, let us come back to 
the proposition for a moment and see the position he occupied during 
that day, to show whether he intended to engage in the contest. As I 
said, his troops were lying on the road from three to four miles, with 
arms stocked, during the day. He had but two regiments deployed at 
any time during the whole day, and then he withdrew them and put 
them in the brush. Further than that, when he received that order, 
will the Senator insist that he ever told one of his officers, stotf officers 
or anybody else, that he had received an order to attack ? The evidence 
shows that when that order was delivered to him he was lying down 
undera tree resting. The order was handed to him; he read it, folded 
it up, and put it in his vest pocket. General Sykes, who was sitting by 
his side, testifies that Porter never told him what the order was; that 
he never knew that Porter had received an order to attack. Morell says 
the same. Every commander that he had who has given testimony at 
all testifies that he did not give them any information that he was di¬ 
rected to attack at any time or any place. So when he sent word to 
Morell to put his command in line, Morell says that he was deploying 
his regiment, and while he was deploying it he got an order to with¬ 
draw it and go into camp for the night. 

Fitz-John Porter was charged with having allowed some of his officers 
to retreat during the day. That has been persistently denied. The 
evidence does show that when General Sturgis reported to him with his 
brigade and informed him that there was a battery being established in 
his front and called his attention especially to it, he said no, and gave 
Sturgis an order not to move forward and assault the enemy. But what 
was the order? To move back to Manassas and go into a defensive 
position. That was the order that Sturgis received, and the only one 
received that day from Fitz-John Porter. Sturgis went into the bat¬ 
tle, but he did not go in by the order of Porter. He himself moved his 
troops to the front and engaged with the enemy on the next morning. 

When Porter was ordered to bring his whole command on the battle¬ 
field, Griffith’s brigade, a part of Porter’s command, retired to Centre- 
ville, and remained at Centreville during the whole battle. It came 
there on the night of the 29th and remained there, and never fired a 
gun. Piatt commanded a brigade, and he makes the statement and pub¬ 
lishes it to the world that he received no orders at all. He reported 
that day, and the only way he got into the battle was by going on his 
own motion and engaging in the battle on the 30th. He received no 
orders whatever from Porter. In all the evidence an order can not be 
found that Porter ever gave to a solitary regiment, brigade, or division 
to engage in the battle, or even in a skirmish, with the enemy at any 
time during that day. 

Porter received the order I will say at 5.30 o’clock. The Senator says 
at 6.30 o’clock. What was the order ? To move at once, and attack 


30 


the enemy on the right flank and in rear, if possible, keeping his right 
well refused, so as to strike back on the left of Pope’s line, using his 
artillery freely. That was the order given to Porter. Will you tell me 
why he did not attempt to obey that order ?> There has not been an order 
given to Porter up to the present time that he obeyed, except to move 
forward, which he did to Dawkin’s Branch, and there stopped. Then, 
instead of starting at 6 o’clock in the morning when he was ordered, he 
did not start until 9 o’clock. In all this case I defy any friend of Fitz- 
John Porter to put his finger on one order requiring immediate action 
which he obeyed. He utterly refused to obey any order given to him 
either to move or to fight. 

ONE OP porter’s excuses FOR REFUSING TO FIGHT. 

Suppose we take it for granted that Longstreet had twenty-five thou¬ 
sand men drawn up in line right in Porter’s front, what of it ? Does 
a man always expect to fight inferior forces ? Many times during the 
late war the confederates fought us with one-half the number we had. 
We fought them sometimes with one-half the number they had. The 
only rule of warfare that I know is to strike the enemy where you find 
him, if your army is engaged. To say that a man shall not fight because 
he expects to be whipped is something new in military science. It is some¬ 
thing that I have never been taught before. Since I came to the Senate 
I have learned that this is the idea of some gentlemen, but never dur¬ 
ing my little experience in the Army did I so understand it. 

Speaking of small armies assaulting great ones, the world’s history 
is full of such cases. At the battle of Marathon the Athenians, a handful 
almost, in the afternoon assaulted the Persian hordes and drove them 
from the land, slaying six thousand of the Persians, when only about 
two hundred of the Athenians were slaughtered, owing to the impetu¬ 
osity of the assault. 

Now let me contrast this man’s conduct on the 29th of August with 
the conduct of an officer at the battle of Marengo. There, when the 
battle was lost, when the troops were lea\i,ng the field, when Dessaix 
said the sun was receding and the enemy advancing, that great sol¬ 
dier, who fell in that conflict, with six thousand men moved forward 
without orders, assaulted the enemy, and turned defeat into victory. 
So, too, this man could have done if he had obeyed his orders; but he 
failed to do it, failed in every instance. 

I could name quite a number of victories won by an army inferior in 
numbers in our war. When Vicksburg was first surrounded with thirty 
thousand men in.side its walls we had only twenty-seven thousand men 
to impale them there, and miles of our line were only held by a skirmish 
line. The enemy did not know it, however. It was a mere picket line, 
that they could have gone through any day or night. They supposed 
of course that there was a column of troops behind, but it was not true. 
In many instances throughout the late war cases of the kind occurred. 
Yet, forsooth, tq-day a man with twelve thousand five hundred troops 
fails to assault an enemy for fear that he will be whipped. A man is a 
good commander who can possibly command more than that number of 
troops in a battle. He may command a corps with his division com¬ 
manders having their orders to manage their divisions; he may com¬ 
mand an army with his corps commanders having their orders, but the 
immediate control of twelve thousand troops in a battle will be satis¬ 
factory to the genius of almost any man in military affairs. 

THE REAL QUESTION IN THE CASE. 

There is but one more point in this case that I desire to discuss. The 
Senator from New Jersey has said that Fitz-John Porter was a good 


31 


soldier prior to this time. I do not dispute it. He says he did well 
the next day. I do not dispute that. It was absolutely necessary for 
him to do something on the next day. After our army was broken to 
pieces perhaps he had to help. Nobody questions that. The question 
before the Senate is not whether a man has been a good soldier or a poor 
soldier. The question before the court-martial was: Did he disobey his 
orders; were they lawful; could they have been obeyed? 

THE LAST ORDER ISSUED BY POPE TO PORTER ON THE 29TH, 

General Pope, finding that it was impossible to have Porter obey any 
of his orders, finally issued the following order, directing him to march 
on the battlefield and report to him, with his command, in person, also 
to note the time of the receipt of the order, lor the reason that Porter 
had avoided noting the time of the sending or receiving of any orders 
or dispatches during that day: 

Headquarters Army op Virginia, 

In the Fields near BuU Run, August 29, 1862—8.50 p. m. 

General : Immediately upon receipt of this order, the precise liour of receiv¬ 
ing which you will acknowledge, you will march your command to the field of 
battle of to-day, and report to me in person for orders. You are to understand 
that you are expected to comply strictly with this order, and to be present on 
the field within three hours after its reception, or after daybreak to-morrow 
morning. 

JOHN POPE, 
Major-General, Commanding. 

Maj. Gen. F. J. Porter. 

The very issuing of the above is proof that Pope could not get Porter 
to obey any of his orders, and in fact this order was not literally obeyed, 
as Porter did not bring his whole command on the field of battle on the 
30th. 

With all these facts before us who can say that he was unjustly found 
guilty ? 

The maxim of Napoleon, “to always march to the sound of the ene¬ 
my’s guns,” was totally unheeded by Porter. 

To sum up his conduct on the 29th in brief: The battle began at 
Groveton at 9 o’clock the 29th; he was at Dawkin’s Branch at 12 o’clock, 
on a plain road to Gainesville, within two miles of Pope’s left, where the 
battle was raging; he had his troops stack arms along the road from 
Bethel chapel to Dawkin’s Branch, adi.stance of three miles; his troops 
did not move from their position of resting during the whole day. The 
sound of battle was heard by his command during the entire day until 
9 o’clock at night; he was ordered to move to Gainesville in the morn¬ 
ing—to push forward. He was ordered to join his right on Pope’s 
left; he was ordered to attack the enemy. He did not obey these orders; 
he did not try to obey any or either of them. He heard the shock of 
battle, the shouts of triumph and despair, but he moved not while 
the red-throated cannon belched forth missiles of death; while mus¬ 
ketry rattled as the long-roll on a thousand drums; while infantry as¬ 
saulted and cavalry charged; while men fell in death’s embrace and the 
wounded cried for help; while the blood of his comrades flowed like 
water. While his commanding officer and his fellow-soldiers anxiously 
listened for the sound of his guns, he lay beneath the shade of a tree, 
putting his orders in his pocket, without informing his officers what they 
directed him to do. Sir, does history record such action in any soldier 
prior to this time ? Where is the man other than Porter that ever lay 
with twelve thousand men who were panting to miove to the aid ot 
comrades within two miles of a battle for nine weary hours without 
firing a gun or even trying to ascertain if he could be of any assistance ? 

Sir, no such case can be found; and we are asked to condemn the 
court-martial that convicted him for his disobedience of orders. Was 


32 


ever such request made by such a man? The only information sent by 
him during the day to his superiors was that he was going to retire or 
retreat to Manassas, and this was received just as the battle was hottest. 
Dust, sir, dust, was his only excuse. Men in buckram haunted him all 
the day. Let the many widows and orphans made that day and the 
many graves of brave men who fell on that field, bear testimony against 
him in all time to come. 

This thing of sympathy for a man because he has been punished for 
disobedience of orders is one thing, but the law and the just verdict of 
a court is another. You are not asked to sympathize with this man. 
You are asked to overturn the verdict of a court. You are asked to de¬ 
clare the law contrary to what the law was as expounded by that court. 
You are asked to reverse the verdict of a lawfully constituted tribunal. 
You are asked to reverse the record made by the President of the United 
States. I ask you whether you can do it as a legal proposition? You 
may do it in violation of the law, you may do it in'V'iolation of right and 
justice in reference to military conduct, but when you do that, do not 
place it upon the ground that you sympathize with this man, and are 
justified in your action. 

Our sympathy goes out to all humanity. The poor down-trodden man 
in Europe has our sympathy. The poor man in this country has our 
sympathy. The man who has to labor night and day sliould have our 
sympathy; the sick, the sore, and distressed should have our sympathy; 
and our sympathy should le^ us to do what? To extend to them food 
or raiment, to give them employment or aid them in all proper ways, 
but not to do that which overrides law. It is not that which will 
override justice; it is not that which will override the principles which 
underlie this Government, and destroy the morale of our grand little 
Army, that can be justified on the ground of sympathy. 

THIS BILL ESTABLISHES A DANGEROUS AND BAD PRECEDENT. 

Mr. President, when every day poor, unfortunate, crippled officers are 
having their bills to put them on the retired-list referred to the Mili¬ 
tary Committee reported against, and why ? Because they were dis¬ 
missed from the service or because they resigned from the service, and 
therefore are not in law entitled to be put back. That has been the 
rule in the Congress of the United States, and the exception to the 
rule is made in fiivor of a man who was dismissed from the service for 
wanton disobedience of orders in the time of a great liattle. And this 
is to be made the exception. Why? Will some Senator tell me? 
Why are these appeals made? I ask when the soldier who sleeps in 
the far-olf grave is forgotten, when only his name is known by the 
monument that is above him, saying that he fought for his country, and 
that is all; when he is remembered by a poor little pension to his heirs, 
a man who stood with his musket in time of battle with courage against 
the enemy, this pittance is allowed to his heirs; for what? For his loy¬ 
alty, for being true to his Government, for obeying orders even to the 
loss of life. But here comes a man who failed his superior officers, who 
was dismissed from service, and asks to be reinstated—reinstated for 
what? For disobedience of orders; for failing when failure was dis¬ 
aster. He asks you to put him back in the Army, to be supported 
with a $3,000 salary as long as he may live. For what? Sir, if this 
man is to be restored, where is the Union officer that was wounded in 
battle, where is the crippled officer to-day, whether he belonged to the 
regular Army or to the volunteers, who would not be entitled to the 
same consideration? Yet the Senate would not vote for it. I tell you, 
Mr. President, make not these distinctions; make not this record. 
It is not one of honor, nor do I believe the country will so regard it. 


33 


EQUALITY AND JUSTICE TO THE PEOPLE. 

• I have tried to hurry through and not detain the Senate too long. I 
say, in conclusion, that the war for the Union was fought to preserve a 
great Government, to preserve the rights of citizens, to give them pro¬ 
tection under the law, and to secure equality of rights and justice be¬ 
fore the law. If this act of wrong, as I deem it, shall be perpetrated 
by the Congress of the United States, it will be declaring that those who 
failed in the hour of trial are those who shall be honored in the hour of 
triumph; it will be declaring to the world.that the record of those in the 
Army who failed at the important time is as good as that of those who 
sustained the Government; that the honor and glory of the whole Army 
of the United States shall not be maintained alone by the honors it 
won, but shall be maintained by the honors lost by its unworthy mem¬ 
bers. When we returned to our homes and our peaceful pursuits, when 
the armies of a million of men melted away into the paths of peace, we 
then expected, and ought to expect now, that nothing would be done by 
Congress at least that would mar that thought that should be in every 
man’s mind, that equality and justice should be done to all according 
to the laws and Constitution of our land, that justice should be done 
the living and that justice also should be meted out to the reputation 
of the dead. 

So then for the honor of this nation let not its representatives mar 
the record that loyalty made in behalf of this great Government and 
for the benefit of this people. 

I have deemed it to be my duty as a member of this body to oppose 
at all times a proposition of this character, because I believe it to be 
wrong in theory and certainly 'wrong in practice. I believe it will de¬ 
moralize the Army and have a demoralizing effect upon the country. 

DANGER OP THE PIR.ST STEP. 

I say in all kindness to the other side of this Chamber (it will perhaps 
have no effect), your course, assisted by a few of our side in this case, 
will prevent the people of this country as long as you shall proceed in 
this way from having confidence that you intend to administer the af¬ 
fairs of the Government fairly. The opening of the doors for Fitz-John 
Porter does not mean Fitz-John Porter. It means breaking down the 
barrier, the wall between the good and the bad and those who failed in 
time of trial and those who did their duty. It means opening the door 
on the retired-list to Porter and to other men who failed us in our trials 
who shall follow in his wake. It means more. I do not care what a 
few gentlemen who were in the Union Army may say, I do not care 
what a few gentlemen who were not in the Union Army may say; but 
the great body of the American people do not believe in breaking clown 
the barriers between the men who failed in time of need and the men 
who stood at their posts. 

When I say that, I am speaking of our loyal people. I mean that the 
people do not believe in your coming here to regulate courts-martial for 
us, that we settled during the war. They do not believe it is just; 
they do not believe it is right. I am speaking the truth to you, and the 
people will emphasize it hereafter. Let your confederacy regulate its 
own courts-martial while it existed in opposition to this Union, but do 
not come here from under that flag with numbers sufficient to put dis¬ 
graced men back in the Army, to cast slurs upon our men who did 
their duty, to trample in the dust the authority that suppressed your 
confederacy. Let not your feelings go that far. If they do, I tell you 
that more years than you think will pass over your heads before you 
will have the confidence of the American people. 

Lo-3 



34 


There are some friends on this side of the Chamber who join with the 
other side. They are entitled to tlieir views. 1 say to them, you wiJl 
open the doors to danger in this country when you do this act. It is 
not an act of kindness to this man; it is an act of kij ustice to the Army; 
it is an act of injustice to the loyal people of this country; it is an act of 
injustice to the memory of Lincoln and those who were associated with 
him at the time; it is trampling under foot the law and the facts. You 
who were the friends in the hour of trial, you who stood by then, should 
not falter now. You are to-day doing that which you would not have 
done ten years ago. But to-day the consciences of some people are getting 
so easy that we must do everything that is asked for men who failed 
us in the hour of our greatest danger, for men who are entitled to noth¬ 
ing except what they received. We are asked in charity which is no 
charity to violate the law, to violate the proper rules of civil conduct, 
to violate the judgment of a court, to violate the order of a President 
made according to law and in justice, as shown at that time and now. 
I hope at least that men who have stood by the country in the hour of 
trial will not weaken in the hour of triumph in the interest of those 
whose triumph would have proved disastrous to the country. 

The conscientious feeling that I have performed my duty according 
to my honest convictions to my country, to the honor of our now 
faithful little Army, to my comrades in arms during the war, to the 
living and the dead that took part in the judgment of the court, to the 
loyal people that loved this country and helped to save it, shall be in 
my own breast through life my reward for my action in this case. 


APPENDIX. 

EVIDENCE, REPORTS, AND ORDERS IN THE PITZ-JOHN PORTER CASE. 

Badeau on the subject of marches, says: 

It was late in the evenintj before Grant reached Burkeville, where he found 
that Ord had moved to Rice’s Station and intrenched in front of Lee. The gen¬ 
eral-in-chief at once reported the situation to the Government. 

And here is his dispatch: 

The troops are pushing now, though it is after night, and they have had no 
rest for more than one week. 

That was the way General Grant moved armies. 

Now let me show what General Grant understands by an imperative 
order, by an order that means to be obeyed. Here is his language on 
page 586 of the third volume of the Military History of U. S. Grant, by 
Badeau: 

I am moving the cavalry column on Appomattox depot. There are eight 
trains of cars at that point to supply Lee’s army. Everything is being run out 
of Lynchburg toward Danville. Our troops are reported at Liberty. This must 
be Stoneman. 

When Crook received his orders to rejoin Sheridan he was very unwilling to 
obey, and went in person to Grant to complain. 

Crook did not disobey Sheridan’s order, but he went to Grant. He 
was ordered by Grant to report to Sheridan, but was unwilling to obey, 
and he went to Grant; for what? To be excused from obeying the 
order. What did he say ? 

His troops— 

Crook said— 

were tired and worn; they had marched all day, forded the river, and fought a 
battle, in which they had been repelled. Not a thousand men were fit to move. 

What did Grant say ? 

But Grant was peremptory; the emei^ency was immediate; Sheridan had 
asked, and Crook was obliged to conform. Accordingly, the cavalry crossed 
the stream again in the night and set out to rejoin Sheridan. 



35 


Now let me read again about marcl^cs day and night. On page 596 
of the same volume you will find this: 

Orel marched his men from daylight on the 8th until daylight on the 9th of 
April, halting only three hours on the road—a terrible march ; but the men un¬ 
derstood that they were conquering theia* enemy as effectually by marching as 
by fighting, and did not murmur. Griffin did as well as Ord. His troops marched 
twenty-nine miles and bivouacked at 2 a. m. on the 9th; then moved again at 4, 
and reached Sheridan’s position at 6, just as Lee was approaching in heavy force 
to batter his way through the cavalry, 

Again— 

Crook was soon hotly engaged. He ran his guns to the front and held his 
ground in spite of a heavy onset of the enemy, for the rebels must make their 
way through now or all was lost. Lee’s force was infantry and greatly outnum¬ 
bered Sheridan, and the cavalry leader soon sent back, urging Ord to hasten for¬ 
ward; at the same time he directed Crook to fall back slowly and sacrifice no 
more men in trying to check this heavy force. Gibbon, Griffin, and a division 
of colored troops were ensconced in the woods waiting for orders to advance. It 
looked as if Sheridan was deserting the field and meant to allow the rebel army 
to pass. Lee’s men gave once more the battle-yell and quickened their pace and 
doubled their fire, when suddenly, the cavalry having all retired, the infan%-y 
line emerged from the woods, and the rebellion was over. 

Now, let US go further, to show some of these marches: 

All night the Army of the Potomac marched, though it had been allowed no 
rest for five full days and nearly as many nights; marched without food ; as its 
commander said, “As ready to die from fatigue and starvation as from the bul¬ 
lets of the enemy.” 

On page 622 of Badeau’s Military History of U. S. Grant I find: 

The marvelous marching, not only of Sheridan but of the men of the Fifth 
and Twenty-fourth Corps, AV'as doing as much as a battle to bring the rebellion 
to a close. Twenty-eight, thirty-two, thirty-five miles a day in succession these 
infantry soldiers marched—all day and all night. From daylight till daylight 
again, after more than a week of labor and fatigues almost unexampled, they 
pushed on to intercept their ancient adversary, while the remainder of the Army 
of the Potomac was at his heels, 

grant’s opinion of the porter case in 1874. 

Washington, April 18,1874. 

Mr. President : It is no doubt known to you that General Fitz-John Porter 
claims to have procured evidence since his trial, not attainable at the time, which 
would either acquit him of the crime of which he stands convicted or greatly 
modify the findings and .sentence of the court-martial before which he was tried, 
and that he has embodied in a printed pamphlet the kind and character of this 
evidence and what he expects to establish by it, together with an appeal for a 
rehearing of his case. 

It is widely asserted by those who sympathize with him. and probably believed 
by many who have no personal interest in his ca.se, that influences hostile to him 
have restrained you from examining this statement of his case, and have thus 
worked great injustice by preventing the Executive from considering state¬ 
ments or evidence which might vindicate his character. 

It is needless to say to you that I have never used any influence with you, per¬ 
sonal or other, to prev^ent the inve.stigation of his .statements, nor even intimated 
to you in any manner that I objected to any action you might think proper to 
take in the matter. 

Nevertheless, as I do not wish even to seem to consent to any additional mis¬ 
conceptions concerning me or my action in this case, I beg (if you have not al¬ 
ready done so) that you will yourself, Mr. President, examine as fully into the 
question as you think justice or mercy demands; or that you will order a board 
of competent officers of high rank, unconnected with the armies or transactions 
involved, to investigate fully the statements of this new evidence made by Gen¬ 
eral Porter, and report to you what, if any, bearing it would have upon the find- • 

ings and sentence of his court-martial, even if it could be fully established. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JOHN POPE, 
Brigadier-General, U. S. A. 

General U. S. Grant, 

President of the United States, 

Executive Mansion, Washington, D. C., May 9,1874. 

Mv Dear General: Yourletferof the 18th of April, in regard to your position 
in the matter of a rehearing of the Fitz-John Porter court-martial, was duly re¬ 
ceived. You are under the apprehension that I had not fully examined the case. 


36 


or rather that the public so thought, and that you had used means to prevent 
me from giving the subject fair consideration. 

In reply, I will make two emphatic statements: First, to the best of my recol- 
lectioii I have never had but one letter from you on this subject prior to the one 
I am now answering, and that simply contained the request that if I conten^lated 
reopening the case that I examine both sides. I read during the trial the evi¬ 
dence and the final findings of the court, looking upon the whole trial one of 
great importance, and particularly so to the Army and Navy. hen Genial 
Porter’s subsequent defense was published, I received a copy of it and read it 
with care and attention, determined if he had been wronged and I could right 
him I would do so. My conclusion was, that no new facts were developed tlmt 
could be fairly considered, and that it was of doubtful legality whether by the 
mere authority of the Executive a rehearing could be given. 


Yours, truly. 


U. S. GRANT. 


General John Pope, U. S. A. 
True copies: 


C. S. ILSLEY, 
Captain and Aid-de-Camp. 


porter’s animus toward pope. 

Porter received liis order from Pope at about 9.30 at night. Prior 
to that time he wrote a letter to General Ambrose E. Burnside, of this 
character: 

Warrenton, 27—p. ra. 

To General Burnside : 

Morell left his medicine, ammunition, and baggage at Kelly’s Ford. Can you 
have it hauled to Fredericksburg and stored ? His wagons were all sent to you 
for grain and ammunition. I have sent back to you every man of the First and 
Sixth New York Cavalry except what has been sent to Gainesville. I will get 
them to you after awhile. Everything here is at sixes and sevens, and I find I 
am to take care of myself in every respect. Our line of communication has 
taken care of itself, in compliance with order.s. The army has not three days’ 
provision. The enemy captured all Pope’s and other clothing; and from Mc¬ 
Dowell the same, including liquors. No guards accompanying the trains, and 
small ones guard bridges. The wagons are rolling on, and I shall be here to¬ 
morrow. Good night! 

F. J. PORTER, Major-General. 


Porter was not satisfied with his first letter. At about 4 o’clock, 
August 27, 1863, the same day, he wrote another letter, as follows: 

Warrenton Junction, Angust 27,1862 —i p. m. 

General Burnside, Falmouth : 

I send you the last order from General Pope, which indicates the future as 
well as the present. Wagons are rolling along rapidly to the rear as if a mighty 
poAver Avas propelling them. I see no cause for alarm, though I think this order 
may cause it. McDoAA'ell moves on GainesAulle, Avhere Sigel now is. The latter 
got to Buckland Bridge in time to put out the fire and kick the enemy, Avho is 
pursuing his route unmolested to the Shenandoah or Loudoun County. The 
forces are Longstreet’s, A. P. Hill’s, Jackson’s, Whiting’s, EavcH’s, and Ander¬ 
son’s (late Huger’s) diA'isions. Longstreet is said by a deserter to be very strong. 
They have much artillery and long AA’agon trains. 

The raid on the railroad Avas near Cedar Run, and made by a regiment of in¬ 
fantry, tAVo squadrons of cav'alry, and a section of artillery. The place was 
guarded by nearly three regiments of infantry and some cavalry. They routed 
the guard, captured a train and many men, destroyed the bridge, and retired 
leisurely doAvn the road toward Manas.sas. It can be easily repaired. No troops 
are coming up, except ucav troops, that I can hear of. Sturgis is here Avith two 
regiments. Four Avere cut off by the raid. The positions of the troops are given 
in the order. No enemy in our original front. A letter of General Lee, seized 
Avhen Stuart’s assistant adjutant-general AA'as taken, directs Stuart to leave a 
squadron only to Avatch in front of Hanover Junction, &c. Everything has 
moA'ed up north. I find a vast dift'erence between these troops and ours. But I 
suppose they Avere neAv, as they to-day burnt their clothes, «fcc., Avhen there was 
not the least cause. 

I hear that they are much disorganized, and needed some good troops to give 
them heart, and I think head. We are Avorking now to get behind Bull Run, 
and, I presume, AA^ill be there in a feAV days, if strategy don’t use us up. The 
strategy is magnificent, and tactics in the inA’erse proportion. I would like some 
of my ambulances. 1 Avould like, also, to be ordered to return to Fredericks¬ 
burg and to push toward Hanover, or, Avith alarge force to strike at Orange Court 
House. I wish Sumner AA'as at Washington, and up near the Monocacy with 
good batteries. I do not doubt the enemy hav'e large amounts of supplies pro¬ 
vided for them, and I belieA'e they haA'e a contempt for this Army of Virginia. I 


37 

wish myself away from it, with all our old Army of the Potomac, and so do our 
companions. 

I was informed to-day by the best authority that, in opposition to General Pope’s 
views, this army was pushed out to save the Army of the Potomac, an army that 
could take the best care of itself. Pope says he long since wanted to go behind 
the Occoquan. I am in great need of ambulances, and the officers need medi¬ 
cines, which, for want of transportation, were left behind. I hear many of the 
sick of my corps are in houses on the road very sick. I think there is no fear of 
the enemy crossing the Rappahannock. The cavalry are all in the advance of 
the rebel army. At Kelly’s and Barnelt’s fords much property was left, in con¬ 
sequence of the w’agons going down for grain, &c. If you can push up the grain 
to-night please do so, direct to this place. There is no grain here to-day, or any¬ 
where, and this army is wretchedly supplied in that line. Pope says he never 
could get enough. Most of this is private. 

F. J. PORTER. 

But if you can get me away, please do so. Make what use of this you choose, 
so it does good. 

P. J. P. 

GENERAL POPE’S TESTIMONY RELATING TO MOVEMENTS AUGUST 27, 28, AND 29. 

General Pope, the commander of that army, testified as follows: 

Maj. Gen. John Pope was called by the Government, sworn and examined, as 
follows: 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Q. Will you state to the court what position you occupy in the military serv¬ 
ice of the United States ? 

A. I hold a commission as brigadier-general in the regular Army, and as major- 
general of volunteers. 

Q. What was your position and command, and what the field of your opera¬ 
tions on the 27th of August last ? A 

A. Do you mean my military position as commander? ^ 

Q. Yes, sir. 

A. I commanded the Army of Virginia, which, as originally constituted, con¬ 
sisted of the army corps of McDoAvell, Banks, and Fremont. These, by the 27th 
of August, had been re-enforced by a portion of General Burnside’s command, 
by General Heintzelman’s corps, and on the morning of the 27th by a part of 
General Porter’s corps. A portion of my command also consisted of the troops 
under General Sturgis, which had begun to come up to Warrenton Junction. I 
Avas myself, on the morning of the 27th, at Warrenton Junction. The field of 
operations of the army at that time coA'ered the region of country between the 
Warrenton turnpike and the Orange and Alexandria Railroad. 

Q. At what time on the 27th did you leave Warrenton Junction, and in what 
direction did you march? 

A. 1 left Warrenton Junction before midday, I think, though the precise hour 
I do not remember, and moved east along the railroad, following the movements 
of Hooker’s division, toAvard Manassas Junction. 

Q. At what time did General Porter arrive with his command, or the portion 
of his command of Avhich you speak, at Warrenton Junction? 

A. I think between the hours of 7 and 10 o’clock in the morning of the 27th of, 
August. ’ 

Q,. Hoav many troops had he then Avith him ? 

A. He reported to me that he had brought up Sykes’s division of regulars, - 
numbering forty-five hundred men. 

Q. Did you see his troops ; and, if so, Avhat Avas their condition ? 

A. 1 only saAv them at a distance as they pas.sed along; not sufficiently near 
to ascertain anything about that. 

Q. Did you, or not, after you left Warrenton Junction and proceeded along 
the road east, issue to Major-General Porter an order in reference to the moA’e- 
ments of his troops ; and, if so, Avhat was the character of that order? 

A. I issued an order to General Porter late in the afternoon of the 27th, direct¬ 
ing him to move with his command at 1 o’clock that night to the position I then 
occupied at Kettle Run; that if General Morell, Avith his other division, Avas not 
up to Warrenton Junction Avhen he received that order, to send back and hurry 
him up, and to come forwai-d himself Avith the troops Avhich he had. That is 
my remembrance of the order. I gave him some further directions concerning 
General Banks’s movement, the substance of Avhich I remember A ery well, but 
not the precise Avords. 

Q. Will you look at this order, which is dated “ Headquarters Army of Vir¬ 
ginia, August 27, 1862, 6.30 p. m., Bristoe Station. To Majoi'-General F. J. Por¬ 
ter, Warrenton Junction,” and state Avhether or not that is the order to which 
you refer in your answer? 

A. That is the order I i.ssued. 

(The accused admitted that the order shown to Avitness is the order, a copy of 
which is set forth in the first specification of the first charge.) 


38 


Q. Will you explain to the court the reasons for the urgency of the order, as 
indicated by the following words of the order: “ It is necessary on all accounts 
that you should be here by daylight. I send an officer with this dispatch, who 
will conduct you to this place? ” 

A. General Hooker’s division had had a severe fight along the railroad, com¬ 
mencing some four miles west of Bristoe Station, and had succeeded in driving 
the division of General Ewell back along the road, but without putting it to rout; 
so that at dark Ewell’s forces still confronted Hooker’s division along the banks 
of a small stream at Bristoe Station. Just at dark Hooker sent me word, and 
General Heintzelman also reported to me, that he. Hooker, was almost entirely 
out of ammunition, having but five rounds to a man left, and that if any action 
took place in the morning, he would, in consequence, be without the means of 
making any considerable defense. As it was known that Jackson, with his own 
and the division of A. P. Hill, was at or in the vicinity of Manassas Junction, and 
near enough to advance to the support of Ewell, it -was altogether probable that 
if he should learn the weakness of our forces there he would unite and make an 
attack in the morning. It was for that purpose that I was so anxious that Gen¬ 
eral Porter’s corps should be present by daylight, the earliest moment at which 
it was likely the attack would be made. 

Q,. What distance would General Porter have had to march to have obeyed 
your orders ? 

A. About nine miles. 

Q,. And within what time; from 1 o’clock until when ? 

A. He would have had until daylight. I do not remember exactly what time 
daylight was; perhaps 4 o’clock, perhaps a little earlier. I directed him to move 
at 1 o’clock, in order to give his command as much time to remain in their beds 
at night as possible; supposing that it would occupy him perhaps three hours to 
get upon the ground. I had expected him there certainly by 4 o’clock. 

Q. You had just passed over the road along which he was required by this order 
to march; will you state its condition ? 

A. The road was in good condition everywhere. At most places along the road 
it was a dcAble road on each side of the railroad track. I am not sure it was a 
double roan all the way; a part of the way I know it was. 

Q. Did General Porter obey that order? 

A. He did not. 

Q. At what time on the 28th did he arrive at Bristoe Station, the point indicated 
in your order? 

A. As the head of his column came to Bristoe Station I took out my watch; it 
was twenty minutes past 10 o’clock in the morning. 

Q. Did he at that time, or at any time before his arrival, explain to you the rea¬ 
son why he did not obey the order ? 

A. He wx'ote me a note, which I received, I think, in the morning of the 28th; 
very early in the morning, perhaps a little before daylight. I am not quite sure 
about the time. The note I have mislaid. I can give the substance of it. I re¬ 
member the reasons given by General Porter. If it is necessary to state them I 
can do so. 

The accused asked if the witness had looked for the note. 

The Witness. I looked for it, but have not been able to find it. 

The Judge-Advocate. I will not press the question. 

The Accused. I do not object to it. The witness says he has looked for the note 
and can not find it. I only want to know when and where he has searched for it. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Q,. What was the character of the night; was it starlight ? 

A. Yes, sir; as I remember, it was a clear night; that is my recollection. 

Q. If there were any obstacles in the way of such a march as your order con¬ 
templated, either growing out of the night or the character of the road, will you 
please state them ? 

A. There was no difficulty in marching, so far as the night was concerned. I 
have several times made marches with a larger force than General Porter had 
during the night. There was some obstruction on the road in a wagon train that 
was stretched along the road, marching toward the Manassas Junction, in rear 
of Hooker’s division; not sufficient, in my judgment, to have delayed for a con¬ 
siderable length of time the passage of artillery. But even had the roads been 
entirely blocked up, the railroad track was clear, and along that track had passed 
the larger portion of General Hooker’s infantry. There w'as no obstruction to 
the advance of infantry. 

Q. Whatever obstacle, in point of fact, may have existed to the execution of 
this order, I ask you, as a military man, was it, or not, the duty of General Porter 
receiving this command from you as his superior officer, to have made efforts, 
and earnest efforts, to obey ? 

A. Undoubtedly it was his duty. 

* * * * • * DC * 

0,. You mentioned that in going from Warrenton Junction toward Bristoe Sta¬ 
tion, on the morning of the 27th of August, yousawmany stragglers of Hooker’s 



39 


command on the railroad; were they, or not, in sufficient nu mbers to have im¬ 
peded the march of infantry along the track? 

A. Shortly after I started east from Warrenton Junction we came upon the 
railroad again just east of Cedar Run, and from that time until we reachedBris- 
toe Station the road was lined with stragglers from Hooker’s division. Those 
stragglers commenced singly, then two or three together, then half a dozen, un¬ 
til we had got three or four or five miles from Warrenton Junction toward the 
east, when they began to be in bodies of forty or fifty or one hundred together, 
marching along the railroad going eastward, between Warrenton Junction and 
Bristoe Station. I think the most of them had gotten up to their command at 
Bristoe Station during the night, though I continued to see small bodies of them 
coming along the railroad track on the morning of the 28th of August. They 
occupied the whole track during the day of the 27th as we were going eastward, 
but all of them, or the larger portion of them, got to Bristoe Station during the 
night of the 27th of August. 

Q. Were there, to your knowledge, any openings in the track, such as to have 
made it dangerous for infantry to march along said track at night? 

A. Along the road between Warrenton Junction to Kettle Run, which is per¬ 
haps three miles west from Bristoe Station, the track had been torn up in places; 
but during the day of the 27th of August I directed Captain Morrell, of the en¬ 
gineers, with a considerable force, to repair the track up to the bridge over Ket¬ 
tle Run, which had been burned. He reported to me, on the night of the 27th, 
that he had done so; so that from Warrenton Junction to the bridge over Kettle 
Run there was no obstruction on the railroad of any description. The bridge at 
Kettle Run had been burned; but a hundred yards above the bridge the road 
crossed the creek by a ford, and from there toward Bristoe the most of the coun¬ 
try—in fact, nearly the whole of it—was open country. 

TESTIMONY OP CAPT. DRAKE DE KAY—OPERATIONS ON AUGUST 27, 28, AND 29. 

I now give the testimony of Captain De Kay, on page 43 of the gen¬ 
eral court-martial record; 

Capt. Drake De Kay was then called by the Government, sworn, and exam¬ 
ined as follows: 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Q,. Will you state what position you hold in the military service? 

A. First lieutenant, of the Fourteenth Infantry. 

Q. What position did you hold during the campaign of the Army of Virginia 
under the command of General Pope ? 

A. Aid-de-camp to General Pope. 

Q. Did you, or not, on the 27th of August last, bear a written order from Major- 
General Pope to Major-General Porter, who was then, I believe, at Warrenton 
Junction? 

A. I did. 

Q. Do you remember distinctly the character of that order, and would you be 
able to recognize it again upon having it read to you? 

A. I did not read it. 

Q. Did you, or not, after its delivery to General Porter, learn from him its 
character ? 

A. I was aware of its character by word of mouth, either from General Pope 
or from his chief of staff. 

Q. Will you state itscharacter as you understood it? 

A. That he was to proceed at 1 o’clock that night to move up to Bristoe Station 
with his command. 

Q,. Do you mean at 1 o’clock on the morning of the 28th of August? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. At what hour of the 27th of August did you deliver this order to General 
Porter ? 

A. Between 9 o’clock and half-past 9 p. m.; I think about half-past 9; I could 
not say within half an hour. 

Q. Had you any conversation with General Porter at the time in relation to 
the order or the execution of the order by him ? 

A. Yes, sir; some conversation. 

Q. Will you please state it, as far as you can recall it? 

A. I arrived, as I have said, about half-past 9 o’clock, at his tent, and found 
General Porter and two or three generals there—General Sykes and General 
Morell, and, I think. General Butterfield, though I am not sure whether he came 
in afterward or not. I handed General Porter the order, which he read and then 
handed to one of the generals, saying as he did so, “Gentlemen, there is some¬ 
thing for you to sleep upon.” I then said that the last thing that General Pope 
said to me on leaving Bristoe Station was that I should remain with General 
Porter and guide the column to Bristoe Station, leaving at 1 o’clock, and that 
General Pope expected him certainly to be there by daylight, or relied upon his 
being there by daylight; something of that nature; those may not be the exact 
words; I only give to the best of my recollection, of course. General Porter 


40 


then asked me how the road was, I told him that the road was good, though I 
had had difficulty in getting down on horseback, owing to the number of wagons 
in the road; but I told him I had passed the last wagon a little beyond Catlett’s 
Station from this direction. I told him that as they were moving slowly he 
would probably be up with them by daylight. I also stated to him that his in¬ 
fantry could take the railroad track, as many small squads of men had gone up 
that way. These small squads, I would state here, though I did not state that 
to General Porter, were stragglers from Hooker’s corps; I should think some 
six or eight hundred of them, which we passed in going down to Bristoe Sta¬ 
tion ; they all took the railroad track as the shortest and easiest road. 

0,. What remark, if any, did General Porter make, either to you or to the gen¬ 
erals with him, in reply to your statement in reference to the road and the expec¬ 
tation of General Pope? 

A. He stated—I do not think to me; he spoke generally to all who were in the 
tent—that his troops had .j ust got into camp; that they had been marched hard 
that day; that they would be good for nothing if they were started at that time 
of night; that if their rest was bi’oken they would be good for nothing in the 
morning on coming up with the enemy. 

Q. Did you, or not, make known to him that you were there for the purpose of 
conducting him under the order of General Pope? 

A. I did. 

Q. Did he, or not, at the moment, announce any purpose either to obey the 
order or not to do so? 

A. I do not recollect precisely. 

Q. From the remarks made by General Porter in your hearing, in reply to 
these statements of yours, was or was not the impression made upon your mind 
that it was not his purpose to march in obedience to his order? 

(Question objected to by the accused. 

The judge-advocate stated that he merely wished to arrive at the fact whether 
there was any determination made known to the witness in regard to this order 
in any way; he was not particular as to the form of the question to be asked. 

The accused withdrew his objection.) 

A. There was no order issued to my knowledge, of course, one way or the 
other. That Avould have been done through General Porter’s assistant adjutant- 
general. I can only say that I was aware of the determination not to start until 
daylight, inasmuch as I laid down and went to sleep. 

Q. Do I or do 1 not understand you, then, to say that there was an evident 
determination on the part of General Porter not to march until daylight ? 

A. There was. 

Q. Have you any knowledge as to the time at which his troops had arrived at 
Warrenton Junction? 

A. Only the fact that the regulars—Sykes’s division—were in camp at Warren¬ 
ton Junction at about 10 o’clock in the morning of that day, which fact I am 
aware of from having visited several officers of my regiment in their camp. 

Q. These regulars were a portion of General Porter’s command, were they 
not? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you any knowledge how far the troops under General Porter had 
marched on that day ? 

A. I have not. 

Q. What was the character of the night of the 27th of August? 

A. To the best of my recollection, it was a cloudy night, but not rainy. 

Q. What was about the distance between Warrenton Junction and Bristoe Sta¬ 
tion? 

A. I supposed it to be ten miles; they say nine miles. 

Q. What was the distance from Bristoe Station to Catlett’s Station, where you 
passed the last of the wagons? 

A. I can not tell you exactly; six miles, I should think. 

Q. At what hour did you pass the last of those wagons? 

A. Half past 8 p. m., I should think. 

Q. Did you remainover night and wait until the march of General Porter’s 
command the next dav? 

A. I did. 

Q. At what hour, in point of fact, did he move from Warrenton Junction ? 

A. I should think the head of the eolumn left about 4 o’clock in the morning; 
I am not positive about the hour. 

Q. At what rate did the command march after it left Warrenton Junction? 

A. I could not say at what rate. We started at or about 4 o’.clock in the morn¬ 
ing, and marched along quietly, without any apparent haste, meeting with no 
obstruction or detention, except that arising from the wagons we found in the 
road. The head of the column arrived at Bristoe Station about iO o’clock 1 
should judge. ’ 

Q. At what point did you overtake the wagons, and how many of them do you 
suppose there were ? 

A. I do not recollect. There was a large park of wagons near Warrenton Junc¬ 
tion—about half way between Catlett’s Station and Warrenton Junction—which 


41 


left for Bristoe station at daylight. We overtook those wagons. They were in 
park when I passed down to Warrenton Junction the previous evening; there¬ 
fore I can not tell when we overtook the end of the train which I had passed near 
Catlett’s station the evening before. 

Q. What is the meaning of the term “ in park ? ” 

A. In camp. 

Q. Had General Porter’s command marched at 1 o’clock in the morning would 
he or would he not have passed those wagons in camp ? 

A. He would have passed them in camp, probably. 

Q. Was or was not the march throughout at the usual rate at which troops 
move, or was it slower? 

A. It was at the rate at which troops would move»if there was no necessity for 
rapid movement. 

TESTIMONY OF COL. FREDERIC MYERS, AUGUST 27. 

Col. Frederic Myers, of the Quartermaster’s Department, who is now 
dead, testifies (general court-martial record, page 106): 

Lieut. Col. Frederic Myers was then called by the Government and sworn, 
and examined as follows: 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Q. Will you state to the court in what capacity you served in the Army of Vir¬ 
ginia, under Major-General Pope, during his late campaign, in July and August 
last? 

A. I was chief quartermaster to General McDowell. 

Q. Where were you on the night of the 27th of August last? 

A. I was with the trains of the army, about a mile and a half from where Gen¬ 
eral Hooker had his battle on the 27th. 

He was with the trains about a mile and a half from where General 
Hooker had the battle of the 27th. General Hooker’s battle on the 27th 
was at Bristoe Station, where these troops were to be marched that night. 

Q. Did you, or not, receive any instruction from General Pope on that day re¬ 
lating to your train along the road from Warrenton Junction to Bristoe Station ? 
K so, state what they were. 

A. I was ordered to move the trains in rear of General Hooker. Just before 
dark General Pope with his staff rode up, and I reported to him that General 
Hooker was in action ahead of me, and asked him if I should go into park with 
my trains. He replied that I could do so, or go on, as I thought best. 

Q. What did you do; did you go into park, or did you continue on? 

A. I went into park, and gave directions to all the quartermasters to go into 
park. 

Q,. At what hour on the following morning were those trains upon that road 
put in motion ? 

A. The head of the train commenced moving just at daylight. 

Q. What was the condition of the road between Warrenton Junction and Bris¬ 
toe Station at that time, so far as regards the passage of wagons, artillery, &c. ? 

A. It was in excellent condition at that time. 

Q,. Do you remember the character of that night—the night of the 27th of Au- 
g^ust ? If so, will you please state it ? 

A. I was up nearly all that night. It was quite dark; there was no moon. 

Q. Did the night change in its character toward the morning, or was it the 
same throughout? 

A. It was a dark night. I could not state about it toward morning particularly. 

Q. In view of the condition of the road as you have described it, and also the 
character of the night, was or was not the movement of troops along that road 
practicable that night? 

A. I do not know of anything to hinder troops moving along the railroad there. 
There was a road running each side of the railroad. I should think it would have 
been easy for troops to move along there, although I may be mistaken in that. 

FRANCIS S. earl’s TESTIMONY AS ASSISTANT ADJUTANT-GENERAL, AUGUST 27-28. 

Francis S. Earl, the assistant adjutant-general of General Morell, 
swears as follows (board record, pages 408-413) : 

Q. When did you, as acting assistant adjutant-general for Major-General 
Morell, on the 27th of August, first receive intimation that you were to move 
the next morning ? 

A. That was the day we moved to Warrenton Junction; I knew nothing of 
it until the next morning. 

Q. About daybreak ? 

A. The order came to General Morell that we were to move in the morning; 
that was all I knew—that we were to move in the morning. 

Q. When did you receive the first intimation that you were to move on the 
morning of the 28th? 


42 


A. I could not say whether it was the night before or whether it was during 
the night. I think it must have been before, because I knew we were to mov^ 
at 3 o’clock in the morning, 

Q. Were you up at 3 o’clock? 

A. Yes; I was up at that time, and before, probably. 

Q. You are quite positive you were? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q,. Have a distinct recollection of it ? 

Q,. Yes; I recollect being up at that time. 

Q,. At what time did you arrive at Bristoe Station? 

A. I should judge somewhere about 10 o’clock, between 9 and 10. 

Q,. Do you know of any orders having been given the night before, or any effo4 
made to clear that road from Warrenton Junction to Bristoe Station? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. From your position, Avould you have been likely to have known? 

A. If Iliad really been acting as assistant adjutant-general of division, or 
feeling that I was in that position, I probably may have known of it. 

0,. You considered you were acting in that capacity ? 

A. I considered myself more acting as an aid to General Morell, because I had 
not been announced as assistant adjutant-general. 

Q. Who was acting as assistant adjutant-general ? 

A. Nobody but myself; he so considered me, though I had not been announced. 

EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CHAUNCEY M’KEEVER, AUGUST 27-28. 

General Chauncey McKeever, chief of staff of General Heintzelnian, 
on page 151 of the board record, as it is called. 

General McKeever says: 

Q,. If a peremptory order had been received at Warrenton Junction to move 
from that place to Bristoe at 1 a. m. on the night of the 27th and 28th of August, 
is it your opinion, as a military man, that the troops at Warrenton could have 
been put in motion on the road to Bristoe in order to comply with such a com¬ 
mand? 

A. They could have been put in motion, I presume. I know nothing to pre¬ 
vent their being put in motion. 

Q. Do you recollect about ivhat time it was daylight on the 28th of August? 

A. I should think about 4 o’clock ; may be a little later—not much. 

COL. ROBERT E. CLARY TESTIFIES, AUGUST 27. 

Col. Robert E. Clary, called by accused, swears that he received a 
note from Porter about 10 o’clock to run the railroad trains east beyond 
Cedar Run; and in answer to question says, page 119, G. C. M. (court- 
martial record, page 118): 

Q,. You speak of pushing forward the trains. Do you mean the trains upon 
the railroad, or ordinary Avagon trains? 

A. I mean railroad trains loaded Avith our oAvn stores, and I think some sick 
and wounded. 

Q,. In your opinion, could or could not General Porter, after the receipt of his 
order to move,Avhich receipt Avas at 9.30 p. m. of the 27th of August, have cleared 
the road entirely of wagons by 1 or 2 o’clock that night, so that his march Avould 
not have been much impeded? 

A. I think the troops could have passed over during the night, had a sufficient 
force been sent in advance to have cleared the road of its obstructions, which, 
at the time I passed over it, extended only three miles, I think. When I passed 
over the road it Avas between 2 and 3 o’clock in the morning; what the obstruc¬ 
tions had been previously to that time I am unable to say. 

The examination by the judge-adA^ocate here closed. 

Examination by the Court : 

Q,. Will you state Avhether at I o’clock the character of the night and the state 
of the road Avere such as, in your judgment, to render practicable the march of 
General Porter’s troops to Bristoe Station to arrive at or about daylight? 

A. Not Avithoutthe preliminary steps Avhich I have previously stated ought to 
have been taken. 

0,. Were or Avere not the first three or four miles of the road from Warrenton 
unobstructed ? 

A. They were, as I passed over it. 

TESTIMONY OF SOLOMON THOMAS, AUGUST 27-28. 

Solomon Thomas, of the Eighteenth Massachusetts Regiment, Mar- 
tindale’s brigade, being a part of Morell’s division, swears, on page 841 
of the board record, as follows: 

Q. On the 27th of August Avhere were you? 

A. We were moving on the Warrenton road toward Bristoe Station. I should 


43 


tliink that we were encamped on that night some six to eight miles from Bris- 
toe Station. We went in before sundowm: probably the sun was an hour or an 
hour and a half high when we halted there. 

Q,. When did you move from there? 

A. I was corporal of the guard tliat night, and was ordered to wake the men 
at 1 o’clock, which I did; and we were formed and moved out from our camp 
immediately after 1 o’clock. 

Q. At what time did you start on your march? 

A. We then started immediately from that, and marched a mile probably, 
when we were halted. 

Q,. How long did you remain there before you proceeded on your journey ? 

A. I know at 9 o’clock we were still there. We had halted in the first place 
expecting to stop for a moment, and halted in i)osition. Then we were ordered 
to rest at will, and did so, and then were ordered to lie down, and then we lay 
down. 

Q,. That was the morning of the 28th ? 

A. Yes, sir; and lay in that position, as we felt disposed, until, I should think— 
according to the best of my judgment it was 10 o’clock before we were called to 
company. Then we started and marched for Bristoe Station. 

Q. Do you recollect what the character of that night was, the 27th, and morn¬ 
ing of the 28th of August ? 

A. I do. I recollect the roads were in good condition and that as we moved 
out there was no obstruction whatever in our way. 

Q. You were wounded on the 30th? 

A. On the 31st. 

TESTIMONY OF GENERAL BUTTERFIELD, AUGUST 27. 

Extract from General Butterfield’s testimony (court-martial record, 
page 179): 

General Porter called two aids, and sent them off to investigate the eondition 
of the road, and to ask General Pope to have the road cleared so that we could 
come up. 

PORTER ASKS POPE TO HAVE THE ROAD CLEARED, 

Q. Did you see the order of the 27th from General Pope, or know anything 
about the urgency of its terms? 

A. I did not read it. 

Q. Did you learn of Capt. Drake De Kay that General Pope had taken meas¬ 
ures to have the road cleared ? 

A. I did not. 

Q. Can you state that, in point of fact, the road had not been cleared by Gen¬ 
eral Pope’s orders, or that at 1 o’clock at night and until later in the morning 
the road was all cleared; and can you state that the wagons that obstructed the 
road when you passed had not moved on to the road after daylight? 

A. I can not; I have no knowledge upon that subject. 

STATEMENT OP CAPT. W. B. C, DURYEA, AUGUST 27. 

Capt. W. B. C. Duryea, called by the Government, and sworn and 
examined, as follows (court-martial record, page 113): 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Q,. What is your position in the military service? 

A. I am assistant adjutant-general to General Duryea. 

Q. Where were you and in what position on the 27th August last? 

A. We were on the march from Warrenton, and on the night of the 27th of 
August we halted, I should think, some three or four miles this side of Warrenton. 

Q. At what hour of the night did you halt? 

A. About midnight. 

Q. In your march up to that hour did you experience any unusual difficulties 
growing out of the character of the night? 

A. No, sir. 

EVIDENCE OF WILLIAM W. MACY, AUGUST 27. 

In the board record, page 583, will be found the evidence of William 
W. Macy: 

William W. Macy, called by the recorder, being duly sworn, testified as fol¬ 
lows : 

Direct examination: 

Q. Where do you reside? 

A. Winchester. Ind. 

Q. Were you in the military service of the United States in August, 1862; if so, 
in what capacity ? 

A. I was in the military service at that time; a sergeant, I believe. 

Q. What regiment? _ ... 

A. Nineteenth Indiana Volunteers, Gibbon’s brigade. King’s division. 


44 




Q. When you finally left the service, what rank did you hold ? 

A, I held the rank of captain, A Company, Twentieth Indiana, our regiment 
having become consolidated. 

Q. Where were you on the 27th of August, 1862? . , , c. • 

A. AVith Gibbon’s brigade, on the march most of the day from Sulphur Springs 
toward the old Bull Run battle-ground. 

Q. How long did your brigade continue its march that day ? 

A. About 10 o’clock, I think, or half past 10 that night. 

Q,. You then arrived at what place, as near as you can recollect? 

A. I think it was called New Baltimore. AVe laid near a little town. 

Q,. AVhat was tlie character of that night—the night of the 27th and 28th of 
August? 

A. Rather a dark night; starlight dark night. 

Q. Do you know what the character of that night was toward morning ? 

A. I am a little indistinct as to just the time. I was up at some time in the 
after part of the night. 

Q. Once, or more than once ? 

A. Once that I recollect very distinctly, and I think only once. 

0,. AVhat was the character of the night then, so far as distinguishing objects? 

A. I could see how to get a little way from the camp. I could see where the 
men laid as I went past the line where the soldiers were lying without running 
over them. 

Q. How far could you see ? 

' A. I do not know that I could state how far I could see to distinguish things. 
I could see when I passed the wagon trains enough to stay away from the horses’ 
heels. I could see that the wagon teams were hitched up. 

Q. In marching that night up to 10 o’clock, what difficulty, if any, did you ex¬ 
perience on account of the character of the darkness of the night ? 

A. Alost too dark to march pleasantly. AVe marched many nights as dark, 
though ; some nights that were a good deal darker than it was that night we 
were on the march; but of course it is unpleasant marching after night. 

Q. Your regiment, in the march—how was it as to keeping its formation ? 

A. Coiild keep the ranks, as far as that was concerned. 

Q,. AVhat was the character of the roads, as to whether muddy or the reverse, 
on the night of the 27th of August ? 

A. They were not muddy unless we ran into a branch. 

LIEUT. EDWARD BROOKS TESTIFIES, AUGUST 27. 

Lieut. Edward Brooks called by the Grovernment, and sworn and ex¬ 
amined, as follows (general court-martial record, page 112): 

By the Judge-Advocate: 

Q. AVhat is your position in the military service? 

A. I am a first lieutenant of volunteers in the Sixth AVisconsin Regiment. 

Q,. State to the court, if you please, whether or not you were serving with the 
Army of Virginia on or about the 27th of August last. 

A. I was. 

Q. In what place occupied by that army were you on the night of the 27th of 
August? 

A. I was at Bristoe Station and at Greenwich. 

Q. Do you remember the character of the night; if so, will you state whether 
it was of usual or unusual darkness ? 

A. It was not very dark—not so dark but what I could find my way through 
the woods. 

Q. AVasorwasnot the night of such a character as to offer any unusual difficul¬ 
ties to the march of troops ? 

A. It was not. 

Q,. AVhat was the general condition of the road from AA’^arrenton Junction in 
the direction of Manassas Junction? 

A. It was very good. 

Q,. Did you have full opportunities of ascertaining the condition of that road on 
the night of the 27th of August? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. AVhat opportunities did you have? 

A. I traveled from beyond AVarrenton to AVarrenton Junction, from AVarrenton 
Junction to Bristoe Station; and after arriving at Bristoe Station I went across 
the country to Greenwich. 

Q. Have you, or not, frequently passed over the road ? 

A. Very often. 


testimony of col. THOMAS F. M’COY, AUGUST 27. 

Board record, page 640: 

Col. Thomas F. McCoy, called by the recorder, being duly sworn, was exam¬ 
ined and testified as follows : 

^ 4 : 4 : 


♦ 


45 


Q. Whose brigade and whose division ? 

' A. Duryea’s brigade, Ricketts’s division, McDowell’s corps. 

Q. What rank did you leave the service with? 

A. Colonel. 

Q,. Were you brevet brigadier-general? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where were you on the afternoon of August 25, 1862 ? 

A. A little southwest of Warrenton. 

How late did you march that day and evening? 

A. The 25th? 

Q. Ves. 

A, I don’t think we marched on the 25th. We marched on the 23d. 

Q,. Until how late? 

A. About 10 or 11 o’clock. 

Q,. On the 27th of August were you on the march late in the day? 

A. Yes. 

Q,. Until how late did you then march? 

A. All night, until 1 o’clock. 

Q,. What difficulty, if any, was experienced in marching that night? 

A. We didn’t have any difficulty in marching that night. There was a good 
deal of straggling among the soldiers. 

STATEMENT OF COLONEE BUCHANAN, AUGUST 27. 

Colonel Buchanan, of the Third Indiana Cavalry, on page 603 of the 
board record, in reference to Porter’s movement from Warrenton Junc¬ 
tion to Bristoe, testifies as follows: 

Q. What conversation had you with General Porter before he started off to 
Bristoe Station ? 

A. On the evening before he started somebody gave me an order to be in readi¬ 
ness to move at 3 o’clock in the morning. I was in front of General Porter’s 
headquarters at 3 o’clock in the morning, but 1 saw no one until after the break 
of day. Then some one came to me and told me to let the men get their break¬ 
fasts and let their horses be fed. That was done, and I immediately went back 
to the place I occupied. Some time afterward, after sunrise, I saw General 
Porter. I wanted to go back to Fredericksburg to my regiment. I only had 
about ninety men with me, and I expected to go back the day before. I rode out 
with him in the woods, where he was in camp, until we got into an open field. 
He asked me to send a detachment of the command I had forward to clear the 
road toward Bristoe Station, two or three miles. This was done. I waited some 
little time, and the infantry began to move. About that time he handed me a 
letter, and directed me to give it to General Burnside, and told me I could go. 
I started toward Fredericksburg; he sent an aid after me and brought me back, 
and told me he was apprehensive that I might be captured. He told me to say 
to General Burnside—I can not get his language—but the idea was that there 
was no disaster that was very threatening as yet, and he hoped for the best. 

EVIDENCE OP WILLIAM E‘. MURRAY, AUGUST 27-28. 

Board record, page 586: 

William E. Murray, called by the recorder, being duly sworn, testified as fol¬ 
lows ; 

Direct examination : 

Q,. Where do you reside ? 

A. Winchester, Ind. 

Q. Were you in the military service of the United States in the month of Au¬ 
gust, 1862; if so, in what capacity? 

A. Yes; I was a member of Company C, Nineteenth Indiana Volunteers. 

Q. In whose brigade and division? 

A. Gibbon’s brigade. King’s division. 

Q. Where were you on the night of August 27, 1862? 

A. The night ofihe 27th our regiment was encamped near New Baltimore; a 
little to the north, I think, of New Baltimore; that is, we stopped there about 
10 o’clock, perhaps. 

Q. How long had you been marching before you made that halt on that day 
of the 27th? 

A. We had been marching, I think, most of the day; not continuously, but 
back and forth. 

Q. From sunset, how much of that time had you been marching up to 10 
o’clock? 

A. I am unable to state the distance. 

Q. Were you marching during that time? 

A. We were moving most of the time. 

Q. Did you keep to the road, or in the fields, or both? 

A. Generally to the road, except where we would meet obstructions in the 
way of cavalry or artillery; kept mainly in the roads. 


4G 


Q. How was it after dark ? 

A. Much the same. 

Q. Do you recollect the character of the roads at that time, as to whether they 
were dry or muddy? 

A. I don’t remember any mud; I think they were gfcnerally dry. 

Q. Do you recall what the character of the night of the 27th of August was? 

A. There was no moon, according to my recollection, but it was clear; we 
could see objects plain enough. 

Q. At a great distance? 

A. A rod or so. 

Q. How much of that night were you up after coming to a halt at 10 o’clock? 

A. I should think that I did not lie down till near midnight. 

Q. Up to that time, do you recollect what the character of the night was, as 
far as distinguishing objects was concerned ? 

A. My recollection is that it was the usual starlight night. 

Q. Up to that time, during that night, what difliculty, if any, did you experi¬ 
ence in marching? 

A. No particular difficulty. 

Q,. How was the regiment, so far as its formation was concerned, on that inarch 
after sunset. 

A. I think they kept their formation about as well as usual. 

WILLIAM M. CAMPBELL TE.STIFIES, AUGUST 27. 

Board record, page 591; 

William M. Campbell, called by the recorder, w’as sworn and examined, as 
follows: 

Direct examination: 

Q. State your residence. 

A. I reside in Randolph County, Indiana. 

Q. During the month of August, 18G2, were you in the military service ? If so, 
in what capacity ? 

A. I was in the military service, and in the Nineteenth Regiment of Indiana 
Volunteers, Gibbon’s brigade. King’s division. 

Q. Where w’ere you on the evening of August 27,1862? 

A. We w'ere marching from the direction of Warrenton to Centreville, on a 
road that led in that direction, as far as I knew'. 

Q. On what is ealled the Warrenton, Gainesville and Centreville pike? 

A. I think that was it; that is my recollection of it. 

Q. How late did you march? 

A. We marched until after night. I couhl not .state how late it was, beeause I 
did not have any timepiece. It was after night when we stopped. 

******* 

Q,. What was the character of the night ? 

A. It w'as an ordinary night, without moonlight; that is my recollection about 
it; nothing extraordinary in any way, only an ordinary night, such as we had a 
good many of in Virginia abouttho.se times. 

Q. How' far could you distinguish objects? 

A. We marched our regiments in companies, and got along w'ithoutany diffi¬ 
culty that I recollect of. How’ far we could see I could not say. 

J. H. STINE EXAMINED, AUGUST 27. 

Board record, page 597: 

J. H. Stine, called by the recorder, being duly sworn, testifies as follow's: 

Direct examination: 

Q. Where do you reside? 

A. I reside at Winchester, Randolph County, Indiana. 

Q. During the month of August, 1802, were you in the military service of the 
United States? If so, in what regiment ? 

A. I was in Company C, Nineteenth Indiana Volunteers. 

Q. Where w'ere you on the afternoon, evening, and night of the 27th of Au¬ 
gust, 1862? 

A. We started from Sulphur Springs near noon and marched north through 
Warrenton, going through there about 3 or 4 o’clock, and on north toward the 
Bull Run battle-ground. 

0,. At what time did your regiment halt? 

A. We marched cpiite a time after 9. 

Q. Where was the rest of the brigade? 

A. The whole brigade was together. 

Q,. Where w'as the rest of the division ? 

A. I took a great interest in the history of the movement oi troops, and that 
day-we were understood to be going into battle; I don’t positively recollect 
whether the whole of the division w'ent into camp or not; I know' the next day 
we W'ere not together all the time. 


47 


Q. In marching during that evening, what difficulty, if any, did you expe¬ 
rience in getting along ? 

A. None, particularly. 

Q. Did you keep to the road? 

A. Mainly we did, though sometimes we didn’t. 

Q. Do you recollect what the character of the night was on the 27tli of August, 
1862. 

A. My recollection is that from, say, 8 to 10 o’clock, it was may be toward from 
8 to 11, it was not so light as afterw’ard. 


; TESTIMONY OP WILLIAM BIRNEY, AUGUST 27. 

I Board record, page G83: 

j William Birney, called by the recorder, being duly sworn, testified as follows: 

I Direct examination ; 

Q. Where do you reside? 

A. Washington city. 

Q. In tlie month of August, 1862, what rank did you hold in the service of the 
United States? 

A. I was mtyor of the Fourth New Jersey Regiment; I commanded the Fifty- 
seventh Pennsylvania. 

Q. You finally left the service with what rank? 

A. Brevet major-general. 

i Q,. Early that month I believe you were taken prisoner? 

; A. No, sir; I was taken prisoner at Gaines’ Mill. 

Q. When did you as.sume command of the Fifty-seventh Pennsylvania? 

A. Immediately after my exchange. If my memory serves me, I was ex¬ 
changed on the 13th of August and took command about the 15th. 

Q. In whose division were you then? 

A. Commanding the Fifty-seventh; I was in Kearney’s, Heintzelman’s corps. 
Q. Where were you on the night of August 27, 1862, and the morning of the 
28th? 

A. I was in camp, a little north of the Alexandria railroad. 

Q,. Did you march any that night; if so, when, and for what length of time? 
A. We marched that night, but the e.xacth our of starting I can not recollect. 
We marched some time before daybreak and in the direction of Bristoe Station. 
Q. How many hours is it your recollection, about, that you marched ? 

A. I can not now say. I recollect marching some distance. 

Q. What difficulty, if any, did you experience in marching that night, from 
the character of the night or the character of the roads ? 

A. I recollect no particular difficulty about the road. 

Q,. Were you then in command of the Fifty-seventh Pennsylvania? 

A. I was. 

Q. Did the entire brigade march with you ? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you recollect about what time you came to a halt ? 

A. I can not remember whether we halted before we got to Bristoe Station or 
not. We got to Bristoe Station at a very early hour. 


EVIDENCE OP JOHN P. TAYLOR, AUGUST 27. 

Board record, page 861: 

John P. Taylor, called by the recorder, having affirmed, testified as follows: 

Direct examination: 

Q. Where do you live ? 

A. Reedsville, Pa. 

Q,. Were you in the military service of the United States in the month ot 
August, 1862; if so, in what capacity ? 

A. I was captain of the First Pennsylvania Cavalry at that time. 

« !i: * * 

Q,. Have you ever been over the road from Warrenton Junction to Bristoe 
Station ? 

A. Yes; quite frequently. 

Q,. What w’as the character of that road from Warrenton J unction to Catlett’s 
in 1862? 

A. It is on the left side of the road from Warrenton Junction to Catlett’s. There 
is a stream that passes between Warrenton Junction and Catlett’s, I think at a dis¬ 
tance not to exceed a mile. 

Mr. Bullitt. Had the witness been over this road frequently before that? 

A. Yes; I encamped at Catlett’s in the spring of 1862 for some three weeks 
immediately after the enemy vacated Mana.ssas. We were there three weeks 
before the advance moved to Fredericksburg. 

Q. Go on and describe the character of the road as it then was from Warren¬ 
ton Junction to Catlett’s Station. 

A. There is a stream jiasses down between AVarrenton Junction and Catlett s 
and a railroad bridge crosses there, and some trestle-work, but above the bridge 


48 


It is almost level country for some miles west. At that time there was a strip of 
woods that came down near Catlett’s—a narrow strip of woods. We had moved 
all over that ground for a mile west of the railroad. 

Q. Then coming from Catlett’s to Bristoe, what was the character of the road? 

A. That is nearly a vast plain most of the way. There are two streams, I 
think—small ravines—but f he country is a vast plain. General Gregg moved 
his division of cavalry a mile to the north of the railroad, in the night, from 
Bealeton to Auburn, about two or three miles north of Catlett’s. 

Q. Across the country ? 

A. Yes; across the country about a mile, where there was no road. 

Q. At that time, could wagons go on each side of the road ? 

A. There were roads some distance there on each side of the railroad, and 
wagons and troops moved frequently in column. 

Q. More than one road ? 

A. Oh, yes; the troops had made roads. Sometimes one road would get bad, 
and they would go off and make another road. The country was such they 
could have one almost any place. 

By Mr. Bullitt : 

Q,. Were there any woods along the line of that road from Warrenton Junc¬ 
tion to Bristoe Station ? | 

A. There is a strip of woods that comes down at Catlett’s or near Catlett’s. 

Q. Is that the only one ? 

A. There may have been others. 

Q,. I ask you, from your recollection, whether you know there were no others, 
or that there were others ? 

A. I don’t recollect any woods, that is to any distance ; I know there was on 
the right. 

Q. Do you recollect whether there were any roads at that time that had been 
made by the army cutting through the woods and leaving stumps in the road? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you recollect anything of that sort? 

A. There were roads there in the spring of 1862 that the enemy had used dur¬ 
ing the winter of 186I-’62; fencing and everything was gone; it was an open 
country from Manassas to Warrenton Junction. 

Q. Then it was an open country all the way from Manassas to Bristoe, was it? 

A. Very nearly. 

Board record, page 589: 


STATEMENT OP SAMUEL G. HILL, AUGUST 27-28. 

Samuel G. Hill, called by the recorder, being duly sworn, testified as follows; 

Direct examination: 

Q. Where do you reside ? 

A. Arbor, Ind. 

0,. Were you in the military service of the United States during the month of 
August, 1862? 

A. Yes; I was a private in the Nineteenth Indiana, Company C. 

Q. Gibbon’s brigade. King’s division ? 

A. Yes, sir. 

0,. Where were you on the afternoon of August 27, 1862? 

A. On the road from Warrenton to Gainesville. 

How late were you marching? 

A. We were marching until 10 o’clock at night. 

Q,. Do you recollect what the character of the night was? 

A. It was a clear night. 

Q. How much of that night did you have an opportunity of noticing’ 

A. Until probably 3 o’clock of the morning of the 28th. 


SOLOMON THOMAS TESTIFIES, AUGUST 27-28. 

Board record, page 803: 

Solomon Thomas, of Morell’s division. Porter’s corps, called by the recorder 
being duly sworn, testified as follows: ’ 

******* 

Q. On the 27th of August where were you? 

yere moving along the Warrenton road toward Bristoe Station. I 
^ould think that we were encamped on that night some six to eight miles from 
Bristoe Station We went in before sundown; probably the sun was an hour or 
an hour and a half high when we halted there. 

Q. When did you move from there ? 

A. I was corporal of the guard that night, and was ordered to wake the men 
at 1 o clock, which I did, and we were formed and moved out from our camn im¬ 
mediately after 1 o’clock. ^ 

Q. At what time did you start on your march? 

A. We then started immediately from that and marched a mile, probably when 
we were halted. 


49 


Q. How long did you remain there before you proceeded on your journey? 

•A. I know at 9 o’clock we were still there. We had haUed in the first place 
expecting to stop for a moment, and halted in position. Then we were ordered 
to rest at will, and did so, and then were ordered to lie down, and then we lay 
down. 

Q. That was the morning of the 28th? 

A. Yes, sir; and lay in that position, as we felt disposed, until, I should think— 
according to the best of my judgment it was 10 o’clock before we were called 
to company. Then we started and marched for Bristoe Station. 

Q. Do you recollect what the character of that night was, the 27th, and morn¬ 
ing of the 28th of August? 

A. I do. I recollect the roads were in good condition, and that as we moved 
out there was no obstruction whatever in our way. 

Q. You were wounded on the 30th? 

A. On the 31st. 

TESTIMONY OF E. D. ROATH, AUGUST 27. 

E. D. Roath, called by the recorder, being duly sworn, testified as follows: 

Direct examination: 

Q. Where do you reside? 

N A. Marietta, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. 

Q. Were you in the military service of the United States in August, 1862? If 
so, in what capacity? 

A. I was in the military service of the United States in 1862, as captain of Com¬ 
pany E, One hundred and seventh Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteers, Dur- 
yea’s brigade, Ricketts’s division. 

Q,. You finally left the service with what rank? 

A. Captain, and was brevetted. 

Q. On the night of August 27, 1862, where were you ? 

A. We were somewhere, I think, between Warrenton and a place called Water¬ 
loo ; somewhere in the neighborhood of Warrenton. 

Q. Did you make a night march that night? 

A. We marched some; we were going from toward the Rappahannock across 
there. 

Q. How late did you march? 

A. I can not tell exactly what time we bivouacked. I know that we were all 
tired. 

Q. Have you any recollection with reference to midnight as to what time you 
came into camp ? 

A. I could not tell, but I think it was somewhere near midnight; might have 
been 11 o’clock. 

Q. Do you recollect whether you experienced any difficulty in marching? 

A. No, sir; we did not. 

Q. What Avas the character of the night as to darkness? 

A. There was no moon; it was starlight; a little hazy toward morning, I thinks 
GENERAL JUBAL EARLY TESTIFIES, AUGUST 27. 

GeneralJubal Early, confederate, testifies (board record, page 812) that 
he inarched on the night of the 27th, between 10 and 12 o’clock, in the 
direction of Manassas, by way of Blackburn’s Ford, and he experienced 
no difficulty whatever in marching. 

Board record, pages 702, 705, 707, 708. 

STATEMENT OF HENRY KYD DOUGLAS, AUGUST 27. 

Henry Kyd Douglas, staff officer to General Jackson, testifies (on 
page 685, board record) that General Jackson’s whole command moved 
away from Centre ville on the night of the 27th, with all their trappings, 
up to the position, or near it, that they occupied on the day of the battle 
of the 29th. 

I. H. DUVAL TESTIFIES, AUGUST 27. 

Board record, page 820: 

I I. H. Duval, called by the recorder, being duly sworn, testified as follows: 

Q. Where do you reside ? 

A. Wellsborough, W. Va. 

Q. Were you in the military service of the United States in the month of August, 
1862; if so, in what capacity? 

A. I was major of volunteers. First West Virginia Regiment. 

Q. Whose brigade and division ? 

A. I was in the fourth brigade, Rieketts’s division. 

Q. Where were you on the evening of August 27,1862, and what did you do ? 

A. On the evening of August 27 I was with my brigade. We were about four 
miles, I think, northwest of Warrenton at that time—north or northwest—and I 
LO-4 


50 


was directed by niy colonel to carry a letter that be handed me from General 
Ricketts to General Pope. 

Q. To what point? 

A. It was supposed to be somewhere near Centreville. That was my order. 

Q,. What did you then do ? 

A. I started and made the trip and delivered the letter. 

Q. You left the camp about what time ? 

A. Nearly dark; it was after sundown. 

Q,. What road did you take? 

A. I came back to Warrenton, and I followed then the road running from 
Warrenton in the direction of Catlett Station. I was directed to go that way and 
keep out of the way of the enemy. 

Q. Did you pass through Warrenton Junction? 

A. No, sir; I struck the road at Catlett’s. 

Q. What direction did you then take? 

A. I took the road leading from Catlett Station to Manasses Junction, by the 
way of Bristoe. 

Q. Where did you find General Pope? 

A. I found General Pope near Manasses Junction. 

Q,. What was the character of that night? 

A. I don’t know that I recollect distinctly in regard to that. I rode all night, 
though, until about3 o’clock in the morning, when I took a little rest. I had no 
particular difficulty in finding the way. 

Q. From Catlett Station to Bristoe did you meet with any obstruction to your 
movements ? 

A. There were a great many wagons along the line; there were some troops; 
but I went along without any particular obstruction. There were no obstacles 
that kept me from going. 

Q. Did you have any escort with you ? 

A. No, sir. 

TESTIMONY OP MAJOR DUVALL, AUGUST 27. 

Major Duvall also testifies that he traveled eighteen or twenty miles 
that night. 

Board record, page 832, paragraph 875: 

JAMES HADDOW TESTIFIES, AUGUST 27. 

James Haddow, called by the recorder, being duly sworn, testified as follows; 

Direct examination: 

Q,. Where do you reside? 

A. Barlow, Ohio. 

Q,. AVere you in the military service of the United States on the 27th of August, 
1862; if so, in what capacity? 

A. I was in the military service as orderly sergeant of Company F, Thirty- 
sixth Ohio Infantry. 

Q,. AVhen you finally left the service what rank did you hold? 

L. Captain. I was transferred to Company E. 

Q,. AVhere were you at sunset on the 27th of August, 1862—about that time? 

A. We were on the road between Catlett Station and Bristoe. 

Q,. Did you after that go toward Catlett Station; if so, at what time and under 
what circumstances? 

A. We marched that night to Bristoe, arriving at Bristoe Station after dark 
sometime; we remained there that night; on the following morning the regi¬ 
ment went on in the direction of Manassas ; the company of which I was a mem¬ 
ber was detached and put in charge of a major of the medical department to go 
back in the direction of Warrenton with ambulances and obtain medical supplies; 
we returned to somewhere near Warrenton, passing Catlett Station at some dis¬ 
tance on the morning of the 28th; we returned to Bristoe on the evening of the 
28th. 

Q. At what time did you set out from Bristoe Station to go in the direction of 
Catlett Station? 

A. I could not give the hour, but pretty early in the morning—as soon as we 
got up and got breakfast. 

Q,. Did,you during that day see General Porter’s corps ? 

A. We met troops (it was a frequent habit to ask soldiers what troops they 
were), and they said they were General Porter’s troops. Porter’s troops lay at 
Warrenton Junction on the afternoon of the 27th, when we left there. 

Q. What difficulty, if any, did you experience on the morning of the 28th in 
taking this ambulance train from Bristoe Station to Catlett Station ? 

A. I don’t think we had any material difficulty in getting through ; we must 
have had at least three ambulances; we passed through trains and passed troops; 
we must undoubtedly have made a march that day of sixteen miles; we could 
not have met with serious obstructions. 

Q,. Do you know what troops you met? 

A. They said they were General Porter’s; we inquired frequently; of course 


51 


I was not acquainted with General Porter’s corps; we had just reached the East 
from the West, and all troops were strange to me. 

Q. On the morning of the 29th where were you ? 

A. After taking supper on the evening of the 28th, at Bristoe Staton, some 
time after dark, we commenced marchingagain andmarchedto Manassas Junc¬ 
tion, reaching there some time during the night; I don’t know what hour; so 
early in the night that we lay down and slept, however, and on the morning of 
the 29th we were at Manassas Junction. 

Board record, page 834, paragraph 878: 

' STATEMENT OF LIEUT. A. F. TIFFANY. 

Lieut. A. F. Tiffany, called bj the recorder, being duly sworn, testified as 
follows: 

* * * * si: * 

Q. What difficulty, if any, did you experience in getting along in your march 
from Bristoe toward Warrenton? 

A. Nothing more than that which is common where there is a good many 
trains passing; sometimes the road would be full; sometimes we would pass 
around, then we would be on the road again; nothing so very unusual in the 
way of traveling. 

EVIDENCE IN REFERENCE TO THE ORDERS OF TJHE 29TH AUGU T, 1862 —REPORTS 

OF UNION OFFICERS. 

In giving the following reports of Union officers I have been compelled 
in many cases to use extracts, for the reason that in cutting from the 
reports I could not take the pages, it being printed on both sides. The 
same is also the case with the confederate reports. But all material 
points are included, and these extracts apply solely to the 29th of Au¬ 
gust, 1862: 

Report of Brig. Gen. John F. Reynolds, division attached t6 IMcDowell’s corps. 

Headquarters Reynolds’s Division, 

Camp near Mujison's Hill, Virginia, September 5, 1862. 

* # * * * 

General McDowell joined the command at daylight, and directed my co-oper¬ 
ation with General Sigel. 

The right of the enemy’s position could be discerned upon the heights above 
Groveton, on the right of the pike. The division adv'anced over the ground to 
the heights above Groveton, crossed the pike, and Cooper’s battery came gal¬ 
lantly into action on the same ridge on whieh the enemy’s right was, supported 
by Meade’s ijrigade. While pressing forward our extreme left across the pike, 
re-enforeements were sent for by General Sigel for the right of his line under 
General Milroy, now hardly pressed by the enemy, and a brigade was taken 
from Schenek’s command on my right. The whole fire of the enemy was now 
concentrated on the extreme right of my division, and, unsupported there, the 
battery was obliged to retire with considerable loss, in both men and horses, and 
the division fell baek to connect with Schenck. 

Later in the day General l*ope, arriving on the right from Centreville, renewed 
the attaek on the enemy and di'ove him some distance. My division was directed 
to threaten the enemy’s right and rear, which it proceeded to do under a heavy 
fire of artillery from the ridge to the left of the pike. Generals Seymour and 
Jackson led their brigades in advance; but, notwithstanding all the steadiness 
and eourage shown by the men, they were compelled to fall back before the 
heavy fire of artillery and musketry whieh met them both on the front and left 
flank, and the division resumed its original position. King’s division engaged 
the enemy along the pike on our right, and the action was continued with it 
until dark by Meade’s brigade. 

Report of Brig. Gen. John C. Robinson, of Kearney’s division, Heintzelman’s 

corps. 

Headquarters Robinson’s Brigade, 

. Centreville, Va., August 31, 1862. 

« « « « * « « 

On Friday morning I was ordered to “support Colonel Poe’s brigade and to 
develop his line of battle to the right.’’ After crossing Bull Run I moved for¬ 
ward in two lines, the first composed of the Sixty-third Pennsylvania and five 
companies of the Thirtieth Ohio, which were temporarily attached to my com¬ 
mand. Arriving on the ground assigned me, I remained for a considerable time 
exposed to a heavy artillery fire, after whieh I took up my position on high 
ground farther to the right. I was soon after directed by Major-General Kear¬ 
ney, commanding division, to move to the support of Poe’s left, when I formed 
the Sixty-third and One hundred and fifth Pennsylvania in line of battle on the 


52 


Leesburg road, holding the Twentieth Indiana and Ohio battalion in reserve. 
At this time there was a heavy musketry fire to our left and front, and I was 
directed to move forward through the woods to turn the enemy and cut off his 
retreat through the railroad cut. 

On arriving on the ground with the Sixty-third and One hundred and fifth 
Pennsylvania, Twentieth Indiana, and Third Michigan, I found the railroad al¬ 
ready occupied by our own troops and the cornfield in front fil led with the enemy. 
I then deployed the Sixty-third and One hundred and fifth Pennsylvania along 
the railroad to the right of the troops in position, directing the Third Michigan 
to protect my right flank, placing the Twentieth Indiana in reserve, and throw¬ 
ing skirmishers to the front. Soon after taking this position the regiments on 
my left gave way and passed rapidly to the rear out of the woods, leaving my 
left flank entirely exposed. 

As rapidly as possible I moved my command to the left to occupy the deserted 
ground, but before my troops could get fairly into position I was fiercely attacked 
by a superior force that had succeeded in crossing the road. I then threw for¬ 
ward my right wing, forming my line of battle at right angles to the original po¬ 
sition, and checked the progress of the enemy. At this time General Birney 
brought up and turned over to me his Fourth Maine. He afterward sent me his 
First, Fortieth, and One hundred and first New York Regiments. These troops 
were deployed to the right and left of the railroad, and pushed forward to the 
support of my regiments in front, which were suffering severely from a terrific 
fire of musketry and the enemy’s artillery posted on a hill to our right and rear. 
Our men now gained steadily on the enemy, and were driving him before them 
until he brought up fresh masses of troops (supposed to be two brigades), when, 
with ammunition nearly expended, we withdrew to our second position. 

Report of Brig. Gen. C. Grover, of Heintzelman’s corps. 

^ Headquarters First Brigade, Hooker’s Division, 

Septeinl)er 26, 1862. 

* * * ♦ 4 : # 

On the following day we continued our march for the plains of Manassas by 
the way of Centreville,and arrived upon the battlefield about 9 a. m. The bat¬ 
tle had already commenced, and as my column moved to the front the shells 
fell with remarkable precision along the line of the road, but fortunately did no 
damage. 

My brigade was temporarily placed under the orders of Major-General Sigel, 
whose troops were then engaging the enemy in the center. Under instructions 
received from him, I threw forward the First Massachusetts Volunteers to sup¬ 
port his line, while my remaining four regiments were drawn up in two lines, 
sheltered from the enemy’s fire by a roll of the field in front. This position was 
occupied until about 2.30 p. m. 

In the mean time I rode over the field in front as far as the position of the enemy 
would admit. After rising the hill under which my command lay an open field 
was entered, and from one edge of it gradually fell off in a slope to a valley, 
through which ran a railroad embankment. Beymnd this embankment the forest 
continued, and the corresponding heights beyond were held by the enemy in 
force, supported by artillery. 

At 3 p. m. I received an order to advance in line of battle over this ground, pass 
the embankment, enter the edge of the woods beyond, and hold it. Dispositions 
for carrying out such orders were immediately made; pieces were loaded, bayo¬ 
nets fixed, and instructions given for the line to move slowly upon the enemy 
until it felt its fire, then close upon him rapidly, fire one well-directed volley, and 
rely upon the bayonet to secure the position on the other side. 

e rapidly and firmly pressed upon the embankment, and here occurred a 
short, sharp, and obstinate hand-to-hand conflict with bayonets and clubbed 
muskets. 

Keport of General P. Kearney (by General Birney), of Heintzelman’s corps. 

Centrevilue, Va., August 31, 1862. 

♦ * * * * * * 

On the 29th, on my arrival, I was assigned to the holding of the right wing my 
left on Leesburg road. I posted Colonel Poe, with Berry’s brigade, in first line; 
General Robinson, First Brigade, on his right, partly in line and partly in sup¬ 
port; and kept Birney’s most disciplined regiments reserved and ready for 
emergencies. 

Toward noon I was obliged to occupy a quarter of a mile additional on left of 
said road, from Sehurz’s troops being taken elsewhere. 

During the first hours of combat General Birney, on tired regiments in the 
center falling back, of his own accord rapidly pushed across to give them a hand 
to raise themselves to a renewed fight. 

In early afternoon General Pope’s order to General Roberts was to send a pretty 
strong force diagonally to the front to relieve the center in woods from pressure. 
Accordingly I detached on that purpose General Robinson, with his brigade, the 
Sixty third Pennsylvania Volunteers. Colonel Hays, the One hundred and fifth 

« 


.53 


Pennsylvania Volunteers, Captain Craig, the Twentieth Indiana, Colonel Brown, 
and, additionally, the Third Michigan Marksmen, under Colonel Champlin. 
General Robinson drove forward for several hundred yards, but the center of 
the main battle being shortly after driven back and out of the woods, my detach¬ 
ment thus exposed so considerably in front of all others, both flanks in air. 
******* 

That I might drive the enemy, by an unexpected attack, through the woods, I 
brought up additionally the most of Birney’s regiments,the Fourth Maine,Colonel 
\yalker and Lieutenant-Colonel Carver, the Fortieth New York; Colonel Egan, 
First New York, Major Burt, and One hundred and first New York, Lieutenant- 
Colonel Gesner, and changed front to the left, to sweep with a rush the first line 
of the enemy. This was most successful. The enemy rolled up on his own right. 
It presaged a victory for us all; still our force was too light. The enemy brought 
uji rapidly heavy reserves, so that our further progress was impeded. General 
Stevens came up gallantly in action to support us, but did not have the numbers. 

Report of Maj, Gen. Franz Sigel. 

Near Fort De Kalb, Virginia, September 16,1862. 
******* 

II .—Battle of Qroveton, near Bull Run, on Friday, August 29, 1862. 

On Thursday night, August 28, when the First Corps was encamped on the 
heights south of Young’s Branch, near Bull Run, I received orders from General 
Pope to “ attack the enemy vigorously ” the next morning. I accordingly made 
the necessary preparations at night and formed in order of battle at daybreak, 
having ascertained that the enemy was in considerable force beyond Young’s 
Branch, in sight of the hills we occupied. His left wing rested on Catharpin 
Creek, front toward Centreville; with his center he occupied a long stretch of 
woods parallel with the Sudley Springs (New Market) road, and his right was 
posted on the hills on both sides of the Centreville-Gainesville road. I therefore 
directed General Schurz to deploy his division on the right of the Gainesville 
road, and, by a change of direction to the left, to come into position parallel with 
the Sudley Springs road. General Milroy, with his brigade and one battery, was 
directed to form the center, and to take possession of an elevation in front of the 
so-called “stone house,’’ at the junction of the Gainesville and Sudley Springs 
roads. General Schenck, with his division, forming our left, was ordered to ad¬ 
vance quickly to an adjoining range of hills, and to plant his batteries on these 
hills at an excellent range from the enemy’s position. 

In this order our whole line advanced from point to point, taking advantage 
of the ground before us, until our whole line was involved in a most vehement 
artillery and infantry contest. In the course of about four hours, from half past 
6 to half past 10 o’clock in the morning, our whole infantry force and nearly 
all our batteries were engaged with the enemy, Generals Milroy and Schurz ad¬ 
vancing one mile and General Schenck two miles from their original positions. 
At this time (10.30 o’clock) the enemy threw forward large masses of infantry 
against our right, but was resisted firmly and driven back three times by the 
troops of Generals Milroy and Schurz. To assist those troops so hard pressed 
by overpowering numbers, exhausted by fatigue, and weakened by losses I or¬ 
dered one battery of reserve to take position on their left, and posted two pieces 
of artillery, under Lieutenant Blum, of Schirmer’s battery, supported by the 
Forty-first New York Volunteer Infantry, beyond their line and opposite the 
right flank of the enemy, who was advancing in the woods. 

^ ^ ^ ^ 

At 2 o’clock in the afternoon General Hooker’s troops arrived on the field of 
Wttle and were immediately ordered forward by their noble commander to par¬ 
ticipate in the battle. One brigade, under Colonel Carr, received orders, by my 
request, to relieve the regiments of General Schurz’s division, which had main¬ 
tained their ground against repeated attacks, but were now worn out and nearly 
without ammunition. Other regiments were sent forward to relieve Brigadier- 
General Milroy, whose brigade had valiantly disputed the ground against greatly 
superior numbers for eight hours. 

To check the enemy if he should attempt to advance, or for the purpose of 
preparing and supporting an attack from our side, I placed four batteries, of 
different commands, on a range of hills on our center and behind the woods, 
which had been the most hotly contested part of the battlefield during the day. 
I had previouslv received a letter from Major-General Pope, saying that Fitz- 
John Porter’s corps and Brigadier-General King’s division, numbering twenty 
thou.sand men, would come in on our left. I did, therefore, not think it prudent 
to give the enemy time to make new arrangements, and ordered all the batteries 
to continue their fire, and to direct it principally against the enemy’s position 
in the woods before our front. Some of our troops placed in front were retiring 
from the woods, but as the enemy, held in check by the artillery in the center, 
did not venture to follow, and as at this moment new regiments of General 
Hooker’s command arrived and were ordered forward, -we maintained our posi¬ 
tion which Generals Milroy and Schurz had occupied in the morning. 

During two hours, from 4 to 6 o’clock p. m., strong cannonading and musketry 


I 


54 


continued on our center and right, where General Kearney made a successlul 
effort against the extreme left of the enemy’s lines. 

Report of Brig. Gen. R. H. Milroy. 

Headquarters Independent Brigade, 

Near Fort Ethan Allen, Va., 
September 12,1862. 

On the following morning (the 29th) at daylight I was ordered to proceed in 
search of the rebels, and had not proceeded more than five hundred yards when 
we were greeted by a few straggling shots from the woods in front. We were 
now at the creek, and I had just sent forward my skirmishers, when I received 
orders to halt and let my men have breakfast. While they were cooking, my¬ 
self, accompanied by General Schenck, rode up to the top of an eminence some 
five hundred yards to the front to reconnoiter. We had no sooner reached the 
top than we were greeted by a shower of musket-balls from the woods on our 
right. 1 immediately ordered up my battery and gave the bushwhackers a few 
shot and shell, which soon cleared the woods. Soon after I discovered the enemy 
in great force about three-quarters of a mile in front of us, upon our right of the 
pike leading from Gainesville to Alexandria. I brought up my two batteries and 
opened upon them, causing them to fall back. I then moved forward my brigade, 
with skirmishers deployed, and continued to advance my regiments, the enemy 
falling back. 

General Schenck’s division was off to my left, and that of General Schurz to 
my right. After passing a piece of woods 1 turned to the right, where the rebels 
had a battery that gave us a good deal of trouble. I brought forward one of my 
batteries to reply to it, and soon after heard a tremendous fire of small-arms, and 
knew that General Schurz was hotly engaged to my right in an extensive forest. 
I sent two of my regiments, the Eighty-second Ohio, Colonel Cantwell, and the 
Fifth Virginia, Colonel Ziegler, to General Schurz’s assistance. They were to at¬ 
tack the enemy’s right flank, and I held my other two regiments in reserve fora 
time. The two regiments sent to Schurz were soon hotly engaged, the enemy 
being behind a railroad embankment, which afforded them an excellent breast¬ 
work. 


Report of Brigadier-General Stahl. 

Centreville, September 1, 1862. 

* 4: 4: 4: 4: I): !): 

With break of day on the 29th I followed the second brigade, first division, 
marching to Dogjin’s farm, and took position behind the farm. I remained here 
but a short time. * * * Here I found a number of dead and wounded. Hav¬ 
ing remained here a half an hour, a heavy skirmish occurred at this point. 


Report of Lieut. George B. Haskins, First Ohio Artillery, McLean’s brigade, 
Schenck’s division, Sigel’s corps. 

Headquarters Battery K, 
Buffalo Fort, Va., September 17, 1862. 
******* 

Fighting resumed next morning, August 29, and engaged the enemy until 
about 11 a. m., when we ran out of ammunition, and, not being able to get more, 
were ordered to the rear, where we remained that and the following day, August 
30, until about 5 p. m. 

Report of Colonel Krzyzanowski, commanding second brigade, Schurz’s divis¬ 
ion, Sigel’s corps. 

Near Arlington Heights, September 3, 1862. 

At about half past 5 o’clock a. m. on the 29th of August I received orders from 
General Schurz to advance with my brigade. It was done in the following or¬ 
der ; Two regiments in company column, left in front, and one regiment, the 
Fifty-fourth New York Volunteers, as reserve. On the right of me was Colonel 
Schimelpfennig with his brigade, and on the left General Milroy’s brigade. A 
line of skirmishers having been established, we advanced toward the woods 
through which the Manas.sas Gap Railroad runs. As soon as we entered the 
woods I dispatched my adjutant to ascertain whether the line of skirmishers was 
kept up on both wings, and finding such was not the case and that I had ad¬ 
vanced a little faster than General Milroy’s and Colonel Schimelpfennig’s col¬ 
umn, 1 halted my skirmishers to wait until the line was re-established. How¬ 
ever, being informed that General Milroy was advancing, I sent the Fifty-fourth 
Regiment to take position on my right wing and try to find the lines of Colonel 
Schimelpfennig’s skirmishers, and then I advanced together with the former. 

Scarcely had the skirmishers passed over two hundred yards when they be¬ 
came engaged with the enemy. For some time the firing was kept up; but our 


skirmishers had to yifeld at last to the enemy’s advancing column. At this time 
I ordered my regiments up, and a general engagement ensued. However, I 
soon noticed that the Fifty-fourth and Fifty-eighth Regiments had to fall back, 
owing to the furious fire of the enemy, who had evidently thrown his forces ex¬ 
clusively upon those two regiments. The Seventy-fifth Regiment Pennsylvania 
Volunteers, which up to this time had not taken part in this engagement, was (at 
the time the Fifty-eighth and Fifty-fourth retired) now nobly led on by Lieuten¬ 
ant-Colonel Mahler upon the right flank of the enemy, and kept him busy until I 
had brought the Fifty-eighth at a double-quick up to its previous position, when 
those two regiments successfully drove the enemy before them, thereby gaining 
the position of the Manassas Gap Railroad. 

The F'ifty-fourth had meanwhile been ordered by General Schurz to take po¬ 
sition with the Twenty-ninth RegimentNew YorkStateVolunteers in the inter¬ 
val of my brigade and that of Colonel Schimelpfennig. 

At this time I observed on my right the brigade of General Roberts, to whom 
I explained my position, after which we advanced together a short distance; 
but he soon withdrew his forces, ascertaining that he got his brigade in between 
the columns of our division. We had occupied the above-named position only a 
short time wdien the enemy again tried to force us back, but the noble conduct 
of my troops did not allow him to carry out his design, and he did not gain one 
inch of ground. We were thus enabled to secure our wounded and some of our 
dead, and also some of the enemy’s wounded, belonging to the Tenth South Caro¬ 
lina Regiment. We held this position until 2 p. m., when Ave were relieved by 
a brigade of General Kearney’s division, and retired about one-fourth of a mile 
toward our rear, where we also encamped for the night. 

Report of Col. Joseph B. Carr, commanding brigade of Brig. Gen. Joseph Hook¬ 
er’s division, Heintzelman’s corps. 

Headquarters Third Brigade, Hooker’s Division, 

Camp near Fort Lyon, Va., September 6,1862. 

* ♦ * * * * 

At 2 o’clock Friday morning, August 29, I received orders to march at 3 a. m. 
and support General Kearney, who was in pursuit of the enemy. A march of ten 
miles brought us to the Bull Run battlefield. About 11 a. m. -was ordered in posi¬ 
tion to support a battery in front of the woods, where the enemy with General 
Sigel’s troops was engaged. Remaining about one hour in that position, was 
ordered to send into the woods and relieve two regiments of General Sigel’s 
corps. I sent in the Sixth and Seventh New Jersey Volunteers. Afterward re¬ 
ceived orders to take the balance of the brigade in the woods, wdiich I did at 
about 2 p. m. Here I at once engaged the enemy, and fought him for a space of 
two hours, holding my position until our ammunition Avasall expended. About 
4 o’clock we were relieved by General Reno and Colonel Taylor, but did not 
reach the skirt of the woods before a retreat was made and the woods occupied 
by the enemy. When I arrived out of the Avoods I was ordered to march about 
half a mile to the rear and bWouac for the night. 

Report of Col. J. W. Revere, Seventh New Jersey Volunteers, Carr’s brigade, 
Hooker’s dwision, Heintzelman’s corps. 

In the Field, near Centreville, Va., August 30, 1862. 

Sir ; I haA’e the honor to report that this regiment, being ordered into the 
woods Avith the Sixth New Jersey Volunteers, proceeding [proceeded] to occupy 
them, relieving a Ncav York regiment of General Steinwehr’s division on the 
29th instant at 11 a. m. on the extreme right of the position of our part of the 
army. 

Ad\'ancing about fifty yards, we encountered the enerny’s pickets, and a spir¬ 
ited engagement ensued, with A’arying success; and haAung been relicA^ed by the 
timely adA'ance of the Sixth Regiment New Jersey Volunteers, Ave droA’e the 
enemy from his position, but haAung been strongly re-enforced, he regained it 
about 1 p. m. 

Report of Maj. F. Blessing, commanding Seventy-fourth PennsylA'ania Volun 
teers, of first brigade, Schurz’s division, Sigel’s corps. 

# * * * * 

At 5 o’clock a. m., August 29, we left this place, meeting our brigade, com¬ 
manded by Col. A. Schimelpfennig, at 6 o’clock. After a rest of about fifteen 
minutes the regiment aa’us ordered to take its position on the extreme right of 
the army corps then adv'ancing. Under cover of skirmishers in the front and 
right flank, we ad\'anced in quick time OA'er an open field until we arriA’ed at the 
center of the Avoods, where in an opening aa'C halted. The skirmishers met the 
skirmish line of the enemy, opened fire, and droA’e them into the woods. Forced 
by the heavy artillery fire of the enemy, we changed sev’eral times our positions. 
From the right flank came the report that a strong column was advancing, but 
that it was impossible to recognize Avhether friend or foe. It was afterward as¬ 
certained to be General Kearney’s corps for our relief. The regiment was then 



56 


ordered to the left, where it took its position in the general battle-line, after ad- 
Tancing about four hundred yards under the heavy tire of'the enemy, driving 
the latter back and out of his positions, but by the withdrawing of a regiment 
stationed on the left of the Seventy-fourth, the enemy took advantage, and, 
outflanking us, we were forced back about one hundred yards. 

Forming again in column for attack, the regiment advanced in quick time to¬ 
ward the enemy, who gave way until he arrived at the other side of the railroad 
dam. Here, again flanked by the enemy and under a galling tire of grape-shot 
and canister, the regiment had to leave its position, which it did by making a 
flank movement to the left, forcing the enemy to withdraw from the woods. 
We advanced over our former position, capturing an ambulance with two 
wounded oflicers, to the seam of the woods. At this point a heavy shower of 
grape-shot and canister pouring into us, we withdrew to the railroad dam. After 
resting here for about thirty minutes, we were ordered by General Schurz to sup¬ 
port a battery on the extreme right, keeping in that position till the battery left. 
We then again joined our brigade. Wearied and exhausted we camped for the 
night on the same ground the enemy held the night previous. 

Report of Maj. Steven Kovacs, Fifty-fourth New York Volunteers, Second Bri¬ 
gade, Schurz’s division, Sigel’s corps. 

Camp near Arlington Heights, September 12, 1862. 

Sir: I have the honor to report that on the 29th of August, 1862, the Fifty-fourth 
Regiment New York State Volunteers was drawn up in line of battle at 6 o’clock 
a. m., at Manassas, and ordered for reserve by General Schurz ; at 8 o’clock, by 
his orders, was sent to the woods to drive out the enemy, and found them in large 
force. The regiment instantly became engaged, and it held the woods in spite 
of the superior numbers until 1 o’clock, when it was relieved by another regi¬ 
ment. In this engagement the officers and men behaved themselves bravely, 
especially the second color-bearer, William Rauschmuller, who, seeing his com¬ 
rade (the first color-bearer) fall, instantly seized the fiag, and at the same time he 
cared for his wounded comrade, took him to the rear, and immediately returned 
again to his proper place. After this the regiment was ordered to fall back to 
another wood about half a mile distant, with the order to be in column by divis¬ 
ion, to be ready for any emergency, and the regiment remained under arms all 
night. 


Report of Capt. F. Braum, commanding Fifty-eighth New York Volunteers, 
Second Brigade, Schurz’s divi.sion, Sigel’s corps. 

Camp near Arlington Heights, September 12, 1862. 

* * * * * n: * 

The 29th instant the reg§nent was ordered into action, and marching over a 
plain ground soon was engaged with the enemy, which had taken position in 
the woods. The regiment held the enemy in check from 8o’clock in the morn¬ 
ing till 12 o’clock p. m., when the regiment was relieved. The loss of the regi¬ 
ment was twenty-nine killed, wounded, and missing. 


Report of Col. William Blaisdell, Eleventh Massachusetts Volunteers, Grover’s 
Brigade, Hooker’s division, Heintzelman’s corps. 

Camp near Alexandria, Va., September 14, 1862. 

4: 4: »|e 3|: ^ ^ 

After supporting several batteries the regiment was ordered to move forward 
and engage the enemy. At about 3 p. m., advancing about one mile to the edge 
of a heavy wood, then deploying and moving forward in line of battle until 
within range of the enemy’s pickets, the line was halted, l;)ayonets fixed. Again 
moving forward, driving the enemy’s pickets before it, the regiment came upon 
and engaged a heavy line of the enemy’s infantry, which was driven back and 
over a line of railroad, where the road-bed was ten feet high, behind which was 
posted another heavy line of infantry, which opened a terrific fire upon the regi¬ 
ment as it emerged from the woods. The Eleventh Regiment being the battalion 
of direction, was the first to reach the railroad, and of oourse received tlie heaviest 
of the fire. This staggered the men a little, but recovering in an instant, they 
gave a wild hurrah and over they went, mounting the embankment, driving 
everything before them at the point of the bayonet. 

Here, for two or more minutes, the struggle was very severe, the combatants 
exchanging shots, their muskets almost muzzle to muzzle, and engaging hand 
to hand in deadly encounter. Private John Sawler, of Company D, stove in the 
skull of one rebel with the butt of his musket and killed another with his bayo¬ 
net. The enemy broke in confusion and ran, numbers throwing down their 
muskets, some fully cocked, and the owners too much frightened to fire them 
the regiment pursuing them some eighty yards into the woods, where it was 
met by an overwhelming force in front, at the same time receiving an artillery 
fire, which enfiladed our left and forced it to retke, leaving the dead and many 
of the wounded where they fell. 


57 


It was near the railroad embankment that the brave Tileston, Stone, and Por¬ 
ter, and other gallant men, received their mortal wounds. Being thus overpow¬ 
ered by numerical odds, after breaking through and scattering two lines of the 
enemy, and compelled to evacuate the woods and enter into the open fields be¬ 
yond, the enemy pursuing us hotly to the edge of the woods, I was greatly 
amazed to tind that the regiment had been sent to engage a force of more than 
five times its numbers, strongly posted in thick woods and behind heavy embank¬ 
ments, and not a soldier to support it in case of disaster. After collecting the 
regiment together and moving back to our original position we encamped for the 
night. The oflicers and men of the regiment fought with the most desperate 
bravery ; not a man flinched, and the losses were proportionately severe. Out 
of two hundred and eighty-three oflicers and men who participated in the fight, 
three oflicers and seven enlisted men w'ere killed, three officers and seventy-four 
enlisted men were wounded, and twenty-five missing, making an aggregate of 
ten killed, seventy-seven wounded, and twenty-five missing, all in the space of 
fifteen or twenty minutes. The regiment bivouacked on the field. 


General R. C. Schenck’s report, by Colonel Cheesborough. 

Washington, D. C., Septeniber 17,1862. 

St: ^ ^ ^ ^ 

On Thursday, 29th ultimo, we left Buckland’s Mills, passing through Gaines¬ 
ville, and proceeded on the Manassas Junction pike to within some four miles of 
that place, and then turned eastwardly, marching toward Bull Run. The scouts 
in advance reported a force of the enemy, consisting of infantry and cavalry in 
front. We were hurried forward and formed line of battle with our right toward 
Centreville. Some few shells were thrown into a clump of woods in front where 
the enemy were last seen, but wdthout eliciting any response. Some two hours 
elapsed when heavy firing was heard on our left, which we concluded.wasfrom 
McDowell’s corps, and the enemy who had worked around from our front in 
that direction. We were immediately put in motion,and marched on the War- 
renton road and took position for the night on a hill east of the “stone house,” 
our right resting on the pike. 

On Friday morning early the engagement was commenced by General Milroy 
on our right, in which we soon after took part, and a rapid artillery fire ensued 
from both sides. For some time heavy columns of the enemy could be seen fil¬ 
ing out of a wood in front and gradually falling back. They were within range 
of our guns, which were turned on them and niu.st have done some execution. 
An hour after we received the order to move one brigade by the flank to the left 
and advance, which was done. We here obtained a good position for artillery, 
and stationed I)e Beck’s First Ohio Battery, which did excellent service, dis¬ 
mounting one of the enemy’s guns, blowing up a cjiisson aud silencing the bat¬ 
tery. Unfortunately, however, they were poorly supplied with ammunition, 
and soon compelled to withdraw. 

Our two brigades were now put in motion. General Stahel, commanding first 
brigade, marching around the right of the hill to a hollow in front, w’as ordered 
to draw up in line of battle and halt. Colonel McLean advanced around the left 
of the hill under cover of the woods, pressing gradually forward until he struck 
the turnpike at a white house about one-half mile in advance of the stone house. 
General Milroy’s brigade arrived about the same time. We were halted, and 
sent back for General Stahel, who took the pike and soon joined us. We then 
formed our line of battle in the woods to the left of the pike, our right resting on 
the road, and then pushed on slowly. Milroy, in the mean while, had deployed 
to the right of the road, and soon became engaged with the enemy. Our divis¬ 
ion was advanced until we reached the edge of the woods and halted. 

In front of us was an open space (which also extended to the right of the road 
and to our right), beyond which was another wood. We remained here nearly 
an hour, the firing in the mean w'hile becoming heavy on the right. The enemy 
had a battery very advantageouslyplaced on a high ridge behind the woods in 
front of Milroy, on the right of the road. It was admirably served and entirely 
concealed. Our position becoming known their fire was directed toward us. 
The General determined, therefore, to advance, and .so pushed on acro.ss the f)j)en 
space in front and took po.sition in the woods beyond. We here discovered that 
we were on the battle-ground of the night t)efore, and found the hospital of Gib¬ 
bon’s brigade, who had engaged the enemy. The battery of the enemy still con¬ 
tinued. We had no artillery. De Beck’s and Schirmer’s ammunition h.aving 
given out, and Buell’s battery which had reported, after a hot contest with the 
enemy (who had every advantage in position and range), was compelled to r^ 
tire. It was now determined to flank the battery and capture it, and for this 
purpose General Schenck ordered one of his aids to reconnoiter the position. 
Before he returned, however, 'W'e were requested by General Milroy to assist 
him, as he was very heavily pressed. General Stahel was immediately ordered 
to proceed with his brigade to Milroy’s support. 

It w’as about this time, 1 or 2 o’clock, that a line of skirmishers were observed 
approaching us from the rear; they proved to be of General Reynolds. We com¬ 
municated with General Reynolds at once, who took his position on our left, and 


58 


at General Schenck’s suggestion lie sent a battery to our right in the woods for 
the purpose of flanking the enemy. They secured a position and were engaged 
with him about an hour, but with what result we were not informed. General 
Reynolds now sent us word that he had discovered the enemy bearing down 
upon his left in heavy columns, and that he intended to fall back to the first 
woods behind the cleared space, and had already put his troops in motion. 
We therefore accommodated ourselves to his movement. It was about this time 
that your order came to press toward the right. We returned answer that the 
enemy were in force in front of us, and that we could not do so without leaving 
the left much exposed. General Schenck again asked for some artillery. 

General Stahel’s brigade that had been sent to General Milroy’s assistance 
having accomplished its object under a severe fire had returned, and soon after 
General Stevens reported with two regiments of infantry and a battery of four 
20-pound Parrot guns. With these re-enforcements we determined to advance 
again and reoccupy the woods in front of the cleared space, and communicated 
this intention to General Reynolds. He, however, had fallen back on our left 
some distance to the rear; he was therefore requested to make his connection 
with our left. The Parrots in the mean while were placed in position, and under 
the admirable management of Lieutenant Benjamin did splendidly. Two mount¬ 
ain howitzers also reported, and were placed on our right in the edge of the 
woods near the road and commenced shelling the woods in front of the open 
space, which were now occupied by the enemy, our skirmishers having pre¬ 
viously fallen back. 

The artillery fire now became very severe, and General Schenck was convinced 
that it was very essential that he should have another battery, and so sent me to 
you to get one. I arrived to find one. Captain Romer’s, just starting. You also 
directed me to order General Schenck to fall gradually back, as he was too far 
forward. General Stahel on the left of the pike and Colonel McLean to the left 
of Stahel. I here state in my report that Generai Schenck, on receiving these 
re-enforcements, determined to advance again, and communicated his intention 
to General Reynolds. I carried this message myself, and, after some difficulty, 
found General Reynolds and requested him to halt and form on the left of Mc¬ 
Lean. He had fallen back, however, some distance to the rear of McLean’s line 
of battle, so much so that the enemy’s skirmishers had actually flanked us, and 
in returning to the division I had a narrow escape from being captured. 

I also asked General Reynolds to ride forward to meet General Schenck, who 
had directed me to say that he would be at the extreme left of our line for that 
purpose. General Reynolds neither gave me any positive answer as to whether 
he would meet General Schenck or any information as to what he intended to 
do. I do not know if he complied with the request to make his connection on 
our left, as, on my return to General Schenck, I was immediately sent to Gen¬ 
eral Sigel to represent our position; and when returning again with the order 
to General Schenck to retire slowly, I met the command executing the move¬ 
ment. 

My report was intended merely as a sketch of our movements for General 
Sigel’s information, and I endeavored throughout to be as concise as possible 
and confine myself solely to the operations and movements of our division. I 
now submit the above statement, trusting that the explanations will be satisfac¬ 
tory to General Reynolds. 


Report of Maj. Gen. S. P. Hemtzelman. 

Arlington, Va., October 21 , 1862. 

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 

At 10 a. m. I reached the field of battle, a mile from Stone Bridge, on the AVar- 
renton turnpike. General Kearney’s division had proceeded to the right and 
front. I learned that General Sigel was in command of the troops then engaged. 

At 11 a. m. the head of Hooker’s division arrived; General Reno an hour later. 
At the request of General Sigel I ordered General Hooker to place one of his 
brigades at General Sigel’s disposal, to re-enforce a portion of his line then hard 
pressed. General Grover reported, and before long became engaged, and was 
afterward supported by the whole division. General Pope arrived between 1 
and 2 p. m. The enemy were driven back a short distance toward Sudley’s 
church, where they made another stand and again pressed a portion of our line 
back. All this time General Kearney’s division held its position on opr extreme 
right. Several orders were sent to him to advance, but he did not move till after 
the troops on his left had been forced back, which was near 6 p. m. He now 
advanced and reported that he was driving the enemy. This was not, however, 
until after the renewed heavy musketry fire on our center had driven General 
Hooker’s troops and those he was sent to support back. They were greatly out¬ 
numbered and behaved with exceeding gallantry. 

It was on this occasion that General Grover’s brigade made the most gallant 
and determined bayonet charge of the war. He broke two of the enemy’s lines, 
but was finally repulsed by the overwhelming numbers in the rebel third line. 
It was a hand-to-hand conflict, using the bayonet and the butt of the musket. 
In this fierce encounter of not over twenty minutes’ duration the Second New 



59 


Hampshire, Colonel Marston, suffered the most. The First, Eleventh, and Six¬ 
teenth Massachusetts and Twenty-sixth Pennsylvania were engaged. The loss 
of this brigade, numbering less than 2,000, was a total of 484, nearly all killed and 
wounded. I refer you to General Grover’s accompanying report. 

Had General Kearney pushed the enemy earlier it might have enabled us to 
have held our center and have saved some of this heavy loss, Kearney on the 
right, with General Stevens and our artillery, drove the enemy out of the woods 
they had temp >rarily occupied. The firing continued some time after dark, and 
when it ceased w'e remained in possession of the battlefield. 

THIS DAY MUST NOT BE CONFUSED. 

These all speak of the 29th, not confused with the 30th, for the 30th 
is in a separate part of the reports. 

Lieutenant-Colonel Sewell, commander Fifth New Jersey, reports that 
on the 29th of August^— 

I was soon obliged to relieve my right wing with my left, the former having 
emptied their cartridge-boxes. 

His command had emptied their cartridge-boxes and one wing had to 
be relieved by the other for that reason. 

Captain Weidrick, commanding Battery I, New York Artillery, re¬ 
ports in action from 10 o’clock, 29th, until 3 o’clock, when they had to 
retire on account of loss of ammunition. 

Captain Dilger, commanding battery, reports his battery engaged until 
his ammunition was expended and his battery relieved by another. 

Colonel Thompson, One hundred and fifteenth Pennsylvania, reports 
continuous fighting until his command was relieved by fresh troops, sus¬ 
taining heavy loss. 

Col. G. C. Burling, Sixth New Jersey, was engaged until relieved by 
firesh troops. His loss was severe. 

NEW EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY CONFEDERATE OFFICERS. 

Fitz-John Porter says he found new evidence. What new evidence? 
The new evidence is produced by statements from officers of the con¬ 
federate army for the purpose of showing that on that day he was not 
required to fight because there was no battle. 

REPORTS OF CONFEDERATE OFFICERS. 

General T, J, Jackson, who commanded the rebel forces on that day, 
in making his report April 27, 1863, or rather made, from the records 
he left, by his adjutant-general, says: 

My troops on this day (29th) were distributed along and in the vicinity of the 
cut of an unfinished railroad (intended as a part of the track to connect the Ma¬ 
nassas road directly with Alexandria) stretching from the Warrenton turnpike 
in the direction of Sudley Mill. It was mainly along the excavation of this un¬ 
finished road that my line of battle was formed on the 29th [August], 

Assault after assault Avas made on the left, exhibiting on the part of the enemy 
great pertinacity and determination, but every advance was most successfully 
and gallantly driven back. General Hill reports that six separate and distinct 
assaults Avere thus met and repulsed by his division, assisted by Hays’s brigade. 
Colonel Forno commanding. By this time the brigade of General Gregg, AV'hich, 
from its position on the exti’eme left, was most exposed to the enemy’s attack, 
had nearly expended its ammunition. It had suffered .seA'erely in its men, and 
all its field officers except two were killed or Avounded. 

About 4 o’clock it had been assisted by Hays’s brigade (Colonel Forno). It 
was now retired to the rear to take some repose after seven hours of severe service. 

After seven hours of severe contest it was relieved because the men 
were exhausted. 

And General Early’s brigade, of Ewell’s diA’ision, with the Eighth Louisiana 
Regiment, took its place. 

On reaching his position. General Early found that the enemy had obtained 
possession of the railroad and a piece of wood in front, there being at this point 
a deep cut A\diich furnished a strong defense. Moving through a field he ad¬ 
vanced upon the enemy, droA'e them from the wood and railroad cut with great 
slaughter, and folloAved in pursuit* some tAV'o hundred yards. 

They were driven back with great slaughter. 

Early kept his position there until the following morning. 


.60 

Now, to show that this was on the 29th let us see what he says in 
the conclusion of this report: 

At a later period Major Patrick, of the cavalry, who washy General Stuart in¬ 
trusted with guarding the train, was attacked, and, although it was promptly 
and effectually repulsed, it was not without the loss of that intrepid officer, who 
fell in the attack while setting an example of gallantry to his men well worthy 
of imitation. During the day the commanding general arriv'ed, and also Gen¬ 
eral Longstreet with his command. 

KEPORT OF GENERAL. A. P. HILL. 

Let me call attention to the report of General A. P. Hill, who was 
in that battle on the day of the 29th: 

The evident intention of the enemy this day was to turn our left and overwhelm 
Jackson’s corps before Longstreet came up. 

The evident intention of the enemy, speaking of Pope’s forces, was to 
turn Jackson’s left and overwhelm him before Longstreet could arrive. 

And to accomplish this, the most persistent and furious onsets were made by 
column after column of infantry, accompanied by numerous batteries of artil¬ 
lery. 

The enemyprepared foralast and determined attempt. Their serried masses, 
overwhelming superiority of numbers, and bold bearing made the chance of 
victory to tremble in the balance; my own division exhausted— 

A. P. Hill’s division exhausted— 

by seven hours’ unremitted fighting, hardly one round per man remaining, and 
weakened in all things save its unconquerable spirit. Casting about for help, 
fortunately it was here reported to me that the brigades of Generals Lawton and 
Early were near by, and sending for them they promptly moved to my front at 
the most opportune moment, and this last charge met the same disastrous fate 
that had befallen those preceding. Having received an order from General Jack¬ 
son to endeavor to avoid a general engagement, my commanders of brigades 
contented themselves with repulsing the enemy and following them up but a 
few hundred yards 

MOST FURIOUS ONSLAUGHTS ON HIS COMMAND. 

General Early reports the same thing in his report on the 29th of 
August, the time that he took his position, the time he was engaged, 
and reports it as a severe battle. So Talliaferro and so General Hood. 
Hood’s force was a part of Longstreet’s command. Now, what does 
Hood say? Speaking of the battle of the 29th, he says: 

About 4 o’clock in the afternoon the enemy made a fierce attack upon General 
Jackson, his noble troops holding their ground with their usual gallantry. 

At sunset an order came to me from the commanding general to move forward 
and attack the enemy. Before, however, this di\'ision could come to attention 
they were attacked, and I instantly ordered the two brigades to move forward 
and charge the enemy, which they did most gallantly, driving them in confusion 
in front of them. Colonel Law’s brigade, being engaged with a very heavy force 
of the enemy, captured one piece of artillery, three stand of colors, and one hun¬ 
dred prisoners, and the Texas brigade three stand of colors. It soon became so 
very dark that it was impossible to pursue the enemy any farther. At 12 o'clock 
at night orders came to retake our position on the right of General Jac'icson. 

There was one of the divisions that General Longstreet had General 
Wilcox to support in the attack at Groveton. And yet he says at 12 
o’clock at night he was ordered to retake his former position. lie staid 
there by Groveton. 

WHAT GENERAL M'lLCOX SAID. 

General C. M. Wilcox, of General Longstreet’s command, said: 

Pursuing our line of march, together with the division, we passed by Gaines¬ 
ville, and advancing some three miles beyond, my three brigades were ffirmed 
in line of battle on the left and at right angles to the turnpike. Having advanced 
near three-quarters of a mile, we were then halted. The enemy was in our front 
and not far distant. Several of our batteries were placed in position on a com¬ 
manding eminence to the left of the turnpike. A cannonading ensued and con¬ 
tinued for an hour or two, to which the enemy’s artillery replied. 

At half past 4 or 5 p. m. the three brigades were moved across to the right of 
the turnpike, a mile or more, to the Manassas Gap Railroad. While here mus¬ 
ketry was heard to our left, on the turnpike. This firing continued, with more 
or less vivacity, until sundown. Now the command was ordered back to the 


61 


turnpike, and forward on this to the support of General Hood, who had become 
engaged with the enemy, and had driven him back some distance, inflicting se¬ 
vere loss upon him, being checked in his successes by the darkness of the night. 

After reaching General Hood’s position but little musketry was heard. All 
soon became quiet. Our pickets were thrown out to the front. The enemy’s 
camp-fires soon became visible, extending far off to our left, front, and right. 
Remaining in this position until 12 o’clock at night, the troops were withdrawn 
three-quarters of a mile to the rear and bivouacked, pickets being left to guard 
our front. 

So that by 4 o’clock all the troops that were on the right of Long- 
street were turned back on to Groveton and engaged there at Groveton, 
and staid there until 11 or 12 o’clock at night, leaving nothing but 
Jones’s brigade in the direction of Porter. 

REPOKTS OP LONGSTREET’S OFFICERS AND OTHERS. 

Report of Col. Edward L. Thomas, commanding second brigade, A. P. Hill’s 
division, Jackson’s command. 

Headquarters Third Brigade, Light Division, 

October 26,1862. 

On Thursday, August 28, near Sudley Ford, this brigade was held in reserve 
by order of General Hill; was under fire, but took no active part, and after the 
enemy gave way, moved forward and bivouacked for the night on the field. 
Early on Friday, August 29, the march was resumed, with directions to be pre¬ 
pared for an attack near the railroad. General Gregg’s brigade meeting the 
enemy there, this brigade advanced to his right, the regiments being thrown in 
successively until all became engaged. The enemy were in strong position on 
the railroad. 

We at once advanced and drove them from it. This position we were ordered 
to hold, and, if possible, avoid bringing on a general engagement, and held it 
again.st several attacks of the enemy in strong force during the day. In the af¬ 
ternoon an overwhelming force attacked us, now almost without ammunition, 
in front and on the left flanks, and forced us back a short distance, when Gen¬ 
eral Pender’s brigade advanced promptly and in fine order to the assistance of 
the third, most of which joined General Pender, and together they drove back 
the enemy some distance beyond our previous position, which was held until 
night, the brigade bivouacking on the field. 

Report of Brig. Gen. S. McGowan. 

Headquarters Second Brigade, 

A. P. Hill’s Light Division, Second Army Corps, 

Camp Gregg, Va ., February 9, 1863. 

Ill « * 4: !i: 4: * 

Friday, the 29th, was the glorious but bloody day for the brigade. It may be 
allowed for us to claim that by holding the left steady on Friday we contributed 
to'the success of the great battle on Saturday. The distinguished brigadier-gen¬ 
eral who commanded, and was present everywhere during the day and exerting 
himself to the utmost, was himself spared, only to fall ujjon another victorious 
field (Fredericksburg), but many of our noblest and best officers and men fell 
there. The aggregate of the killed and wounded of the brigade in this battle 
was six hundred and thirteen (613). 

Report of Brig. Gen. N. G. Evans, Longstreet’s command. 

Headquarters Evans’s Brigade, 

Near Winchester, Va., October 13, 1862. 

t, ip * if if * 

On the evening of the 29th of August the brigade engaged the skirmishers of 
the enemy in considerable force on the south side of the road near Groveton, 
and rendered efficient co-operation to the commands of General Wilcox on the 
left and General Hood on the right in driving the enemy from his position. The 
enemy falling back, and the darkness of the night concealing his movements, 
I formed my brigade in the camp of the enemy, until ordered to fall back by 
the major-general commanding. Leaving a strong picket in my front, I with¬ 
drew about a mile to the rear. 

Report of Lieut. Col. R. L. Walker. 

Headquarters Artillery Battalion, March 1, 1863. 

* i(E * * if t/f if 

On Friday, the 29th of August, the batteries were placed in position on the 
ridge in rear and to the left of General A. P. Hill’s di^^sion. Captain Brax¬ 
ton’s battery was engaged early in the forenoon on the extreme left, with the 


f 


62 

loss of some of his horses. Upon the cessation of the enemy’s tire ours ceased 
also. In the afternoon a section of Captain Pegram’s battery hotly engaged 
the enemy on the right. His position was in rear of General Field’s and Gregg’s 
brigades. The loss of this section was very heavy, and, the fire continuing with 
unremitted severity, it was withdrawn. Captain Braxton was then ordered to 
the position, and, with five guns, held it, with loss, under a terrible fire, until 
night closed in upon the field. Captain Crenshaw’s battery was also engaged 
during the day from a point in rear of General Pender’s brigade. 

Report of Col. J. B. Walton, of Longstreet’s command, of second battle of Ma¬ 
nassas. 

Hkadqdarteks Batt.alion Washington Artillery, 

November 30,1862. 

« * * * # Id * 

On the 2yth August, 1862, the four batteries composing the battalion were as¬ 
signed and .served as follows: The fourth company, consisting of two six-pound 
bronze guns and two twelve-pound howitzers, under Capt. D. F. Eshleman, 
Lieutenants Norcom, Battles, and Apps, with Pickett’s brigade ; the second com¬ 
pany, with two six-pound bronze guns and two twelve-pound howitzers, under 
Captain Richardson, Lieutenants Hawes, De Russey, and Britton, with Toombs’s 
brigade; the first company, with three three-inchrifle-guns, under Capt. C. W. 
Squiers, Lieutenants E. Owens, Galbraith, and Brown, and the third company, 
with four light twelve-pound guns (Napoleon), under Capt. M. B. Miller, Lieuten¬ 
ants McElroy and Hero, in reserve. 

About noon on the 29th, the two batteries in reserv'e having halted near the 
village of Gainesville, on the Warrenton and Centreville turnpike, were ordered 
forward by General Longstreet, to engage the enemy then in our front, and near 
the village of Groveton. Captains Miller and Squiers at once proceeded to the 
position indicated by the general and opened fire upon the enemy’s batteries. 
Immediately in Captain Miller’s front he discovered a battery of the enemy, 
distant about 1,2(X) yards. Beyond this battery, and on a more elevated position, 
were posted the enemy’s rifle batteries. He opened upon the battery nearest 
him, and, after a spirited engagement of three-quarters of an hour, completely 
silenced it and compelled it to leave the field. He then turned his attention to 
the enemy’s rifle batteries and engaged them until, having exhausted his ammu¬ 
nition, he retired from the field. 

Captain Squiers, on reaching his position on the left of Captain Miller’s battery, 
at once opened, with his usual accuracy, upon the enemy’s batteries. Unfortu¬ 
nately, after the first fire, one of his guns, having become disabled by the blowing 
out of the bushing of the vent, was sent from the field. Captain Squiers then 
placed the remaining section of his battery under command of Lieutenant Owen, 
and rode to the left to place additional guns (that had been sent forward to his 
assistance) in position. At this time the enemy’s infantry were engaged with the 
forces on the left of the position occupied by our batteries, and while the enemy 
retreated in confusion before the charge of our veterans tlie section under Lieu¬ 
tenant Owen poured a destructive fire into their affrighted ranks. Scores were 
seen to fall. 

Report of Maj. B. W. Frobell, chief of artillery of Hood’s division, Lougstreet’s 
command, of second battle of Manassas. 

Camp near Frederick, Md., Septemlier 9, 1862. 

****** 

At 11 a. m. on Friday I was ordered by General Hood to proceed to the right of 
the turnpike road and report to General Stuart. This I did, with Captain Bach¬ 
man’s battery, Reilly being already in position on the left, and Garden having 
no long-range pieces. General Stuart had selected a position near the Orange 
and Alexandria Railroad. The battery was brought up and immediately opened 
with marked effect on a column of the enemy moving to the right, which at 
once changed direction, moving rapidly to the left. Fifteen rounds were fired, 
when the distance being greatly increased, I ordered Captain Bachman to cease 
firing. At 1 o’clock p. m. Captain Reilly was ordered to the left of the turnpike 
and to take position with other batteries on a hill commanding the hills near 
Groveton House. 

Report of Col. E. M. Law, of Hood’s division, Longstreet’s command, of second 

battle of Manassas. 

Headquarters Third Brigade, September 10,1862. 

* * * * =i: * * 

Leaving Thoroughfare Gap at sunrise on the 29th the brigade marched in the 
directionof Manassas Junction. At Gainesville, on the Warrenton turnpike, the 
line of march changed abruptly to the left along the turnpike in thedirectioiijof 
Centreville. On arriving about midway between Gainesville and the stone house, 
which is situated at the junction of the turnpike and the Sudley Ford road, I was 
ordered by Brigadier-General Hood, commanding the division, to form the bri¬ 
gade in line of battle to the left of the turnpike and almost at right angles with 


63 

It, the right resting on the road and the left connecting with General Jackson’s 
line. 

* « 4: * * « 

The opposing force of the enemy, as I learned from captured oflBcers, consisted 
of General King’s division of four brigades and a battery of howitzers. One piece 
was captured and about a hundred prisoners. Among the prisoners were Captain 
Judson, assistant adjutant-general to General Hatch, and Captain Garish, of the 
battery. 

During the night of the 29th, under orders from General Hood, I resumed the 
position to the rear of Groveton which I had occupied in the morning. 

Report of Brig. Gen. J. B. Hood of operations of his division, Longstreet’s com¬ 
mand, from Freeman’s Ford. 

Division Heaquarters, September 27,1862. 

On arriving at Thoroughfare Gaii, the enemy were drawn up in line to dispute 
our passage. After a spirited little engagement with them by Gen. D. R. Jones’s 
troops, on the evening of the 28th instant, our forces were able to bivouac for the 
night beyond the gap. The next morning, at daylight, the march was again re¬ 
sumed, with this division in the advance, Lieutenant-Colonel Upton, of the 
Fifth Texas, in command of a party of select Texas riflemen, constituting the 
advance guard. 

Coming up with the rear-guard of the enemy before sunrise, this gallant and 
distinguished officer drove them before him so rapidly that halts would have to 
be made for the troops in rear to rest. Early in the day we came up with the 
main body of the enemy on the plains oiManassas, engaging General Jackson’s 
forces. Disposition of the troops being made, the Texas brigade advanced in 
line of battle down and on the immediate right of the’ pike leading to the stone 
bridge, and Colonel Law’s brigade on the left. Arriving on a line with the line 
of battle established by General Jackson, the division was halted by order of 
the general commanding. 

About 4 o’clock in the afternoon the enemy made a fierce attack upon General 
Jackson, his noble troops holding their ground with their usual gallantry. 

At sunset an order came to me from the commanding general to move forward 
and attack the enemy. Before, however, this division could come to attention 
they were attacked, and I instantly ordered the two brigades to move forward 
and charge the enemy, which they did most gallantly, driving them in confu¬ 
sion in front of them. Colonel Law’s brigade, being engaged with a very heavy 
force of the enemy, captured one piece of artillery, three stand of colors, and 
one hundred prisoners, and the Texas brigade three stand of colors. It soon 
became so very dark that it was impossible to pursue the enemy any further. 
At 12 o’clock at night orders came to retake our position on the right of General 
Jackson. 


Report of Major-General Stuart of operations immediately preceding and includ¬ 
ing the battle of Groveton. 

Headquarters Stuart’s Cavalry Division, 

Army of Northern Virginia, 

February 28, 1863. 

De 4: * * * * 

The next morning, 29th, in pursuance of General Jackson’s wishes, I set out 
again to endeavor to establish communication with Longstreet, from whom he 
had received a favorable report the night before. Just after leaving the Sudley 
road my party was fired on from the wood bordering the road, which was in 
rear of Jackson’s lines, and which the enemy had penetrated with a small force, 
it was afterwards ascertained, and captured some stragglers. They were be¬ 
tween General Jackson and his baggage at Sudley. 

I immediately sent to Major Patrick, whose six companies of cavalry were 
near Sudley, to interpose in defense of the baggage, and use all the means at 
hand for its protection, and order the baggage at once to start for Aldie. Gen¬ 
eral Jackson, also being notified of this movement in his rear, sent back infantry 
to close the woods. Captain Pelham, always at the right place at the right time, 
unlimbered his battery, and soon dispersed that portion in the woods. Major 
Patrick was attacked later, but he repulsed the enemy with considerable loss, 
though not without loss to us, for the gallant Major himself, setting the example 
to his men, was mortally wounded. He lived long enough to witness the tri¬ 
umph of our arms, and expired thus in the arms of victory. The sacrifice was 
noble, but the loss to us irreparable. 

I met with the head of General Longstreet’s column between Haymarketand 
Gainesville, and there communicated to the commanding general General Jack¬ 
son’s position and the enemy’s. I then passed the cavalry through the column, 
so as to place it on Longstreet’s right flank, and advanced directly toward Ma¬ 
nassas, while the column kept directly down the pike to join General Jackson’s 
light. I selected a fine position for a battery on the right, and one haying been 


01 


sent to me, I fired a few shots at the enemy’s supposed position, which induced 
him to shift his position. General Robertson, who with his command was sent 
to reconnoiter farther down the road toward Manassas, reported the enemy in 
his front. Upon repairing to that front, I found that Rosser’s regiment was en¬ 
gaged with the enemy to the left of the road, and Robertson’s videttes had found 
the enemy approaching from the direction of Bristoe St,ation toward Sudley. 

The prolongation of his line of march woul d have passed through my position, 
which was a very fine one for artillery as well as observation, and struck Long- 
street in flank. I waited his approach long enough to ascertain that there was 
at least an army corps, at the same time keeping detatchments of cavalry drag¬ 
ging brush down the road from the direction of Gainesville, so as to deceive the 
enemy (a ruse which Porter’s report shows was successful), and notified the 
commanding general, then opposite me on the turnpike, that Longstreet’s flank 
and rear were seriously threatened and of the importance to us of the ridge I 
then held. Immediately upon the receipt of that intelligence Jenkins’s, Kemp¬ 
er’s, and D. R. Jones’s brigades and several pieces of artillery were ordered to 
me by General Longstreet, and, being placed in position fronting Bristoe, 
awaited the enemy’s advance. 

After exchanging a few shots with rifle pieces, this corps withdrew toward 
Manassas, leaving artillery and supports to hold the position till night. Briga¬ 
dier-General Fitz Lee returned to the vicinity of Sudley, after a successful expe¬ 
dition. of which his official report has not been received, and was instructed to 
co-operate with Jackson’s left. Late in the afternoon the artillery on this com¬ 
manding ridge was, to an important degree, auxili.ary to the attack upon the 
enemy, and Jenkins’s brigade repulsed the enemy in handsome style at one vol¬ 
ley as they advanced across the cornfield. Thus the day ended, our lines hav¬ 
ing considerably advanced. 

General Longstreet, in his report, says: 

Headquarters near Winchester, V.a., October \0, 1862. 

sK He 4: 

Early on the 29th (August) the columns were united, and the advance to join 
General Jackson was resumed. The noise of battle was heard before we reached 
Gainesville. The march was quickened to the extent of our capacity. The ex¬ 
citement of battle seemed to give new life and strength to our jaded men, and 
the head of my column .soon reached a position in rear of the enemy’s left flank 
and within easy cannon-shot. 

On approaching the field some of Brigadier-General Hood’s batteries were or¬ 
dered into position, and his division was deployed on the right and left of the 
turnpike, at right angles with it, and supported by Brigadier-General Evans’s 
brigade. Before these batteries could open the enemy discovered our move¬ 
ments and withdrew his left. Another battery (Captain Stribling’s) was placed 
upon a commanding position to my right, which played upon the rear of the 
enemy’s left and drove him entirely from that part of the field. He changed his 
front rapidly, so as to meet the advance of Hood and Evans. 

Three brigades, under General Wilcox, were thrown forward to the support 
of the left, and three others, under General Kemper, to the support of the right 
of these commands. General D. R. Jones’s division was placed upon the Manas¬ 
sas Gap Railroad— 

' ONLY CAVALRY, BRUSH, AND DUST. 

Not on this road [indicating] that Porter was on. 

upon the IManassas Gap Railroad, to the right and in echelon with regard to the 
three last brigades. Colonel Walton placed his batteries in a commanding posi¬ 
tion between my line and that of General .Jackson, and engaged the enemy for 
several hours in a severe and successful artillery duel. At a late hour in the day 
Major-General Stuart reported the approach of the enemy in heavy columns 
against my extreme right. I withdrew General Wilcox with his three brigades 
from the left, and placed his command in position to support Jones in ca.se of an 
attack against my right. After some few shots the enemy withdrew his forces, 
moving them around toward his front, and about 4 o’clock in the afternoon began 
to press forward against General Jackson's position. Wilcox’s brigades were 
moved back to their former position, and Hood’s two brigades, supported 'oy 
Evans, were quickly pressed forward to the attack. At the same time Wilcox’s 
three brigades made a like advance, as also Hunton’sbrigade of Kemper’s com¬ 
mand. 

These movements were executed with commendable zeal and ability. Hood, 
supported by Evans, made a gallant attack, driving the enemy back till 9 o’clock 
at night. One piece of artillery, several regimental standards, and a number of 
prisoner.^ were taken. The enemy’s entire force was found to be massed directly 
in my front, and in so strong a position that it was not deemed advisable to move 
on against his immediate front; so the troops were quietly withdrawn at 1 
o’clock the following morning. The wheels of the captured piece were cut down, 
and it was left on the ground. The enemy seized that opportunity to claim a 
victory, and the Federal commander was so impudent as to dispatch his Gov- 


05 


ernment by telegraph tidings to that effect. After withdrawing from the attack 
my troops were placed in the line tirst occupied and in the original order. 

1 now desire to cnll attention to the report of General Robert E. Lee 
of the first day, second Bull Run, August 29, 1862. It is as follows: 

The next morning, the 29th, the enemy had taken a position to interpose hia 
army between General Jackson and Alexandria, and about 10 a. m. opened with 
artillery upon the right of Jackson’s line. The troops of the latter were dis¬ 
posed in rear of Groveton, along the line of the unfinished branch of the Manas¬ 
sas Gap Railroad, and extended from a point a short distance west of the turn¬ 
pike toward Sudley Mill, .Jackson’s division, under Brigadier-General Starke, 
being on the right; Ewell’s, under General I.iawton, in the center, and A. P. Hill 
on the left. The Federal Army wasevidentlyconcentratingupon Jackson, with 
the design of overwhelming him before the arrival of Longstreet. The latter 
officer left hi, position, opposite Warrenton Springs, on the 26th, being relieved 
by General R. H. Anderson’s division, and marched to join Jackson. He crossed 
at Kinson’s (Hinson’s) Mill in the afternoon and encamped near Orlean that 
night. The next day he reached the White Plains, his march being retarded by 
the want of cavalry to ascertain the meaning of certain movementsof theenemy 
from the direction of Warrenton, who seemed to menace the right of his column. 

On the 28th, arriving at Thoroughfare Gap, he found the enemy prepared to 
disyjnte his progress. General D. R. Jones’s division being ordered to force the 
passage of the mountain, quickly dislodged the enemy’s sharpshooters from the 
trees and rocks and advance<l into the gorge. The enemy hehl the eastern ex¬ 
tremity of the pass in large force, and directed a heavy fire of artillery upon the 
road leading through it and upon the sides of the mountain. The ground occu¬ 
pied by Jones afforded no opportunity for the employment of artillery. Hood, 
with two brigades, and Wilcox, with three, were ordered to turn the enemy’s 
right—^the former moving over the mountain by a narrow path to the left of the 
pass, and the latter farther to the north, by Hopewell Pass. 

Before these troops reached their destination the enemy advancedand attacked 
Jones’s left, under Brig. Gen. G. T. Anderson. Being vigorously repulsed he 
withdrew to his position at the eastern end of the gap, from which he kept up an 
active fire of artillery until dark, and then retreated. Generals Jones and Wil¬ 
cox bivouacked that night east of the mountain, and on the morning of the 29th 
the whole command resumed the march, the sound of cannon at Mana.ssas an¬ 
nouncing that Jackson was already engaged. Longstreet entered the turnpike 
near Gainesville, and moving down toward Groveton the head of his column 
came upon the field in rear of the enemy’s left, which had already opened with 
artillery upon Jackson’s right, as previously described. He immediately placed 
some of his batteries in position, but before he could complete his dispositions 
to attack, theenemy withdrew, not, however, without loss from our artillery. 

Longstreet took possession (position ?) on tJie right of .Jackson, Hood’s two bri¬ 
gades, supported by Evans, being deployed across the turnpike and at right 
angles to it. These troops were supported on the left by three brigades under 
General Wilcox, and by a like force on the right under General Kemper. D. 
R. Jones’s division formed the extreme right of the line, resting on the Manassas 
Gap Railroad. The cavalry guarded our right and left flanks, that on the right 
being under General Stuart in person. After the arrival of Longstreet, the enemy 
changed his position, and began to concentrate opposite Jackson’s left, opening 
a brisk artillery fire, which was responded to with effect by some of General A. 
P. Hill’s batteries. 

Colonel Walton placed a part of his artillery upon a commanding position be¬ 
tween Generals Jackson and I.«ongstreet, by order of the lafrter, and engaged 
the enemy vigorously for several hours. Soon afterward Gener.al Stuart re¬ 
ported the approach of a large force from the direction ofBristoe Station, threat¬ 
ening J.,ongstreet's right. The brigades under General Wilcox were sent to re¬ 
enforce General Jones, but no serious attack was made, and after firing a few 
shots the enemy withdrew. While this demonstration was being made on our 
right a large force advanced to assail the leit of General Jackson’s position, oc¬ 
cupied by the division of General A. P. Hill. The attack was received by his 
troops with their accu.stomed steadiness, and the battle raged with great fury. 

The enemy was repeatedly repulsed, but again pressed on the attack with 
fresh troops. Once he succeeded in penetrating an interval between General 
Gregg’s brigade, on the extreme left, and that of General Thomas, but was 
quickly driven back with great slaughter by the Fourteenth South Carolina Reg¬ 
iment, then in reserve, and the Forty-ninth Georgia, of Thomas’s brigade. The 
contest was close and obstinate; the combatants ^sometimes delivered their fire 
at ten paces. General Gregg, who was most exposed, was re-enforced by Hays’s 
brigade, under General Forno, and successfully and gallantlj’^ resisted the attack 
of the enemy until the ammunition of his brigade being exhausted and all its field 
officers but two killed or wounded, it was relieved, after several hours of severe 
fighting, by Early’s brigade and the Eighth Louisiana Regiment. 

General Early drove the enemy back with heavy loss, and pursued about two 
hundred yards beyond the line of battle, when he was recalled to the position on 

Lo-5 


I 



60 


tlie railroad, where Thomas, Bender, and Archer had firmly held their {ground 
against every attack. While the battle was raging on Jackson’s left General 
Longstreet ordered Hood and Evans to advance, but before the order could be 
obeyed Hood was himself attacked, and his command became at once warmly 
engaged. General Wilcox was recalled from the right and ordered to advance 
on Hood’s left, and one of Kemper’s brigades, under Colonel Hunton, moved 
forward on his right. The enemy was repulsed by Hood after a severe contest, 
and fell back, closely followed by our troops. The battle continued until 9 p. m., 
the enemy retreating until he had reached a strong ijosition, which he held with 
a large force. The darkness of the night put a stop to the engagement, and our 
troops remained in their advanced position until early next morning, when they 
were withdrawn to their first line. One piece of artillery, several stands of col¬ 
ors, and a number of prisoners were captured. Our loss was severe in this en¬ 
gagement. Brigadier-Generals Field and Trimble and Colonel Forno, com¬ 
manding Hays’s brigade, were severely wounded, and several other valuable 
officers killed or disabled, whose names are mentioned in the accompanying 
reports. 

FITZ-JOHN PORTEK’S TESTIMONY. 

Fitz-John Porter himself gave testimony before the court of inquiry 
on General McDowell in Washington city. He appeared before that 
board and gave testimony as follows (page 1010, board record): 

By General McDowell : 

Q. Under what relations as to command did you and General McDowell move 
from Manassas and continue prior to the receipt of General Pope’s joint order ? 

A. I did not know that General McDowell was going from Manassas, and I 
have no recollection of any relations whatever, nor of any understanding. 

Q. Was there nothing said about General McDowell being the senior, and of 
his commanding the whole by virtue of his rank ? 

A. Nothing that I know of. 

Q. What time did you take up your line of march from Manas.sas Junction for 
Gainesville ? 

A. The hour the head of the column left, I presume, was about 10 o’clock ; it 
may have been earlier. Ammunition had been distributed to the men, or was 
directed to be distributed, and the command to be i)ut in motion immediately. 

Q. When you received the joint order, where were you personally and where 
was your command ? 

A. I was at the head of my column, and a portion of the command or the head 
of the column was then forming line in front. One regiment as skirmishers was 
in advance, and also a small party of cavalry which I had as escort. The remain¬ 
der of the corps was on the road. The head of my column was on the Manassas 
road to Gainesville at the first stream, as previously describetl by nie. 

0.. Please state the order of your divisions, &c., in the colunin at that time. 

A. First, Morell’s; next, Sykes’s; the other brigade, Sturgis’s or Piatt’s, 1 know 
nothing of, having left it, in compliance with orders horn General Pope, at War- 
renton Junction, with orders to rejoin as soon as possible. 

Q. Where was King’s division? 

A. I left King’s division getting provisions and ammunition near Manassas 
Junction. I gave, personally, direction to General Hatch, in command, to move- 
up as quickly as possible. I did not see General King at all. 

Q. The witness says he received an order from General McDowell, or what 
he considered an order, when General McDowell first joined him, which order 
he did not obey—will witness state why he disobeyed what he considered an 
order? 

A. The order I have said I considered an order in connection with his conver¬ 
sation, and his taking King’s division from me. I therefore did obey it. 

Q. What did you understand to be the effect of General McDowell’s conver¬ 
sation? Was it that you were to go no further in the direction of Gainesville 
than you then were ? 

A. The conversation was in connection with moving over to the right, which 
necessarily would prevent an advance. 

Q. You state you did not think General McDowell’s order (if it was one) a 
proper one, and that for that reason you continued your movement as if you 
had not seen the joint order. Is the witness to be understood that this was in 
obedience of what he has stated to be General McDowell’s order? 

A. I did not consider that an order at that time, and have tried to convey that 
impression, but it was an expression of opinion which I might have construed 
as an order; but when General McDowell left me he gave no reply to my ques¬ 
tion; and seeing the enemy in my front, I considered myself free to act accord¬ 
ing to my own judgment until I received notice of the withdrawal of King. 

GENERAL POPE’S TESTIMONY REGARDING THE ORDER. 

General Pope testilies in reference to this order on page 14; 

Q. Will you state what orders, if any, you gave to General Porter, on the 29th 


6 / 


of August, in reference to the Tuovements of liimself and his men, and the grounds 
upon whicli those orders were based ? 

A. In answer to that question, it will perhaps be necessary for me to state, at 
least partially, the condition of things on the afternoon of the 28th, and during 
the nightof the 28th and 29th of August, for the reason that the information from 
the front, upon which the dispositions of the army were made, varied at diflerent 
periods of the day and night. And it was not until toward daylight in the morn¬ 
ing of the 29th that I became thoroughly satisfied of the position of the enemy, 
and of the necessary movements of the troops to be made in consequence. The 
orders that I gave to General Porter on the 29th of August, as I remember them, 
were four. One of them was dated in the night I think ; I do not remember the 
time. 

That order I think required him, in consequence of information we had re¬ 
ceived of the enemy’s forces, beyond Centreville, to move upon Centreville. 
But about daylight in the morning I sent General Porter an order to take his 
own army corps, which was then at Manassas Junction; and which by my order 
had been re-enforced by the brigade of General Piatt, which had come up there 
in the command of General Sturgis, and King’s division of McDowell’s corps, 
which had withdrawn to Manassas Junction, or to that vicinity, during the 
night of the 28th, and move forward in the direction of Gainesville. 

An hour and a half later I received a note from General McDow^ell, whom I 
had not been able to find until that hour in the morning, requesting that King’s 
division of his corps be not turned over to General Porter, but that he be allowed 
to conduct it himself. I then sent a joint order to Generals Porter and McDowell, 
directed to them at Manassas Junction, specifying in detail the movement that 
I wished to be made by the troops under their command—the withdrawal of 
King’s division of McDowell’s corps, which during the greater part of the night 
I had understood to be on the Warrenton turnpike, and west of the troops under 
Jackson. Their withdrawal to Manassas Junction, I feared, had left open Jack¬ 
son’s retreat in the direction of Thoroughfare Gap, to which point the main por¬ 
tion of the army of Lee was then tending to re-enforce him. I did not desire to 
pursue Jackson beyond the town of Gainesville, as we could not have done so 
on account of the want of supplies—rations for the men and forage for the horses. 

My order to Generals Porter and McDowell is, therefore, worded that they 
shall pursue the route to Gainesville until they effect a junction with the forces 
that are marching upon Gainesville to Centreville—the forces under Heintzel- 
man, Sigel, and Reno; and that when that junction was formed (as I expected 
it would have been very near to Gainesville) the whole command should halt, 
it being, as I stated before, not feasible with my command in the condition it 
was in, on account of supplies, to pursue Jackson’s forces further. During the 
whole morning the forces under Sigel and Heintzelman had kept up a skirmish¬ 
ing with the rear of Jackson’s forces, they retiring in the direction of Gaines¬ 
ville. They were brought to a stand at the little town of Groveton, about eight 
miles, I think, from Centreville, and perhaps five or six miles from Gainesville. 
When I rode on to tiie field of battle, which was about noon (having been de¬ 
layed at Centreville), I found that the troops had been sharply engaged, and 
were still confronting each other. 

General Sigel reported to me that he needed re-enforcements in the front; that 
his line was weak, and that his troops required to be withdrawn from the ac¬ 
tion. I told him (as I did General Heintzelman, who was presenton the ground) 
that I only wished them to maintain their positions, as the corps of McDowell 
and Porter were then on the march from Manassas Junction toward the enemy’s 
right flank and ought in a very short time to be in such position as to fall upon 
that portion of his line. I desired them, therefore, only to maintain the positions 
they occupied. We waited for the arrival of Generals McDowell and Porter. At 
4 o’clock, or some little after that time (perhaps at half past 4 in the afternoon), 
finding that neither McDowell nor Porter had made their appearance on the 
field, I .sent an order to General Porter informing him generally of the condition 
of things on the field, and stating to him that I desired him to push forward and 
attackthe enemyin flank, and, if possible, inrear, withoutany delay. This or¬ 
der was sent to General Porter about half past 4 in the afternoon. 

Finding that General Porter did not comply with this order, and receiving a 
dispatch which he sent to Generals McDowell and King, stating to them that he 
was about to fall back or was falling back to Manassas Junction, and that he 
did so because he saw clouds of dust, showing that, in his judgment, the enemy 
was advancing on the road he was occupying, and stating that it appeared to him 
from the fire of the battle that he had been listening to that our forces were re¬ 
treating and the enemy advancing, and he had determined to fall back to Ma¬ 
nassas Junction, and recommended Generals McDowell and King to send back 
their trains also—receiving this note, purporting to be from General Porter to 
Generals McDowell and King, I sent an order to General Porter directing him, 
immediately upon the receipt of the order, to march his whole command to the 
field of battle, and to report to me in person for orders, stating to him that I ex¬ 
pected him to comply strictly with that order. j j ^ j 

I put it in such form (perhaps not entirely courteous) because 1 had understood 
General Porter, upon two several occasions, to have disobeyed the orders that I 


08 


had sent him. These are all the orders that I issued on that day and night to 
General Porter. I will state in addition to what I have already said, that the 
first of these orders to which I have referred, being subsequently superseded, is 
not perhaps referred to here. I will also state that the corps of Sigel, Heint^el- 
man, and Reno were formed in line of battle across the Warrenton turnpike, 
facing to the west, and near the little town of Groveton, or at it, almost at the 
point where the road from Manassas Junction to Sudley Spring—the Sudlcy 
Spring road I think it is called—crosses Warrenton turnpike a little in advance 
of that road. 

(The judge-advocate stated that the first order, referred to by the witness in 
his answer to the last interrogatory, is not referred to in the specifications, being 
superseded by a subsequent order.) 

Q. Excluding from view the first order given on the morning of the 29th of 
August, and which directed General Poi-ter to fall back upon Centreville, and 
which, you say, was superseded by a subsequent order, are or are not the other 
three orders which you have enumerated in your last answer, given to General 
Porter on that day, the same which are set forth in the .second, third, and fourth 
specifications of the first charge preferred against him? [Handing witness the 
charges and six;cifications.] 

A. (After examining them.) They are the .same orders. 

Q. Do you mean to say that the order set forth in the .second specification, ail- 
dressed to Generals McDowell and Porter, is the one that superseded that first 
order ? 

Xo, sir. There was one sent to General Porter previous to that time, giv¬ 
ing nearly the same directions, and which is referred to in that joint order as 
having been given an hour and a half before. I repeated that order in detail, 
because I was not sure that General Porter had received the order referred to 
there as having been sent to him an hour and a half before. 

Q. At what hour in the morning was this order issued, addressed to Generals 
McDowell and Porter, and set forth in the second specification of the first charge ? 

A. I do not remember distinctly. I think it was somewhere between 8 and 9 
o’clock in the morning. 

Q. Was there any engagement then pending ? 

A. Fighting was then going on along the turnpike that led from Centreville 
to Warreiiton—fighting was going on quite sharp’y. 

Q. Did the march of General Porter’s command, as indicated in that order, 
lead him toward that battle? 

A. Yes, sir; it led him toward the flank of the enemy. 

Q. What forces had he under his command that morning wben that order was 
Issued ? 

A. He had, or should have had, at Manassas Junction the whole of his own 
corps, which, from his report to me at Warrenton Junction, I understood to be 
between 8,500 and 9,000 men. I had added to his command the troops forming 
the brigade commanded by General Piatt; they were to belong to the division 
of General Sturgis, and I think they numbered about 3,5(X) men. Their exact 
strength I do not know. That was the impression I got from General Sturgis. 

Q. What was his entire command ? 

A. That was his entire command. I understood him to have had from 12,000 
to 12,500 men at Manas.sas Junction. 

Q. What was the distance between Manassas Jmiction and the scene t)f this 
engagement of which you speak? 

A. between five and six miles, I think, though I had not been myself over the 
road. 

Q. Do you know the character of the road? Had you pa.ssed ovor it? 

A. I had not passed over it. 

Q. Did General Porter obey the ortler addressed to him and General Mc¬ 
Dowell? 

.\. I do not know whether he obeyed it; he did not obey it fully ; how far he 
obeyed it I am not able to say; he certainly did not obey the order fully. 

Q. If he had obeyed it, would it not have brought him up with the enemy be¬ 
fore half past 4 in the evening? 

A. Yes, sir. 

On your arriving on the battlefield, where was he reported to you to lie ’ 

.1. I arrived on the battlefield at 12 o’clock, about npon. At 4.30 p. m. nobody 
on the field knew where General Porter was at all. 

Q. Did or did not General Porter obey the second order to which you refer, i.s- 
sued at four and a half o’clock on the 29th of August, directing him to engage 
the enemy in flank, and, if possible, in rear? / 

A. He did not, so far as my knowledge of the fact goes. 

Q,. You have no knowledge of his having made any attack then? 

A. I should have known it if he had attacked. 

Q. Will you state to the court and describe the condition of the battlefield at 
that hour and the importance of his obedience of that order to the success of your 
troops? 

A. Late in the afternoon of the 29th, perhaps toward half past 5 or 6 o’clock— 
about the time that I hoped that General Porter would be in his position and be 


69 


assaulting the enemy on the flank, and when General McDowell had himself ar¬ 
rived with his corps on the field of battle—1 directed an attack to be made on the 
left of the enemy’s line, which was handsomely done by Heintzelman’s corps 
and Reno’s corps. The enemy was driven back in all directions and left a large 
part of the ground with his dead and wounded upon it in our possession. Had 
General Porter fallen upon the flank of the enemy, as it was hoped, at any time 
up to 8 o’clock that night, it is my firm conviction that we should have destroyed 
the army of Jackson. 

Q. You have stated that General McDowell obeyed that order so far as to ap¬ 
pear upon the battlefield with his command? 

A. Yes, sir. He arrived on the battlefield, I think, about 5 o’clock, and im¬ 
mediately pushed forward his corps to the front; the division of General King 
having a very sharp engagement with the enemy along the Warrenton turnpike, 
in advance of the position that we had occupied during the day. 

Q. To reach the battlefield, had or had not General McDowell as great a dis¬ 
tance to march as General Porter? 

A. Yes, sir; I should think fully as great. 

Q. I believe you have stated the distance from Manassas Junction to the bat¬ 
tlefield as about four or five miles? 

A. Five or six miles; I am not quite sure; that is my impression. 

Q. Is or is not that about the distance which the command of General Porter 
would have had to have marched to have obeyed your order? 

A. It would have had to march less than that. You refer, I suppose, to the 
order I issued about half past 4 in the afternoon. 

0,. Yes, sir. 

A. General Porter was reported to me by the aid-de-camp who delivered him 
that order to be two miles or more from Manassas Junction, in the direction of 
the field of battle. 

Q,. In point of fact, did or did not General McDowell, in obeying that order, 
pass General Porter and his command on the way? 

A. I so understood. General McDowell can tell that better than I can myself. 

Q,. I will ask you now in regard to the last order, that which purports to be 
dated on the 29th of August, at 8.50 p. m., and is set forth in the fourth specifica¬ 
tion of the first charge. I will ask you if General Porter obeyed that order or 
not? 

A. General Porter appeared himself on the field the next morning with a por¬ 
tion of his command. Two brigades, however, were not present with him, but 
were reported by aid-de-camp to me as being at Centreville. 

Q,. Do you or not know at what point those brigades were separated from his 
command ? 

A. I do not. 

Q. What brigades were they ? 

A. One was General Griffin’s brigade; the other was,General Piatt’s brigade. 
I would say, however, of the latter brigade that when they reached Centreville 
and found there was a battle going on in the advance they marched forward to 
the field and made their appearance on the ground and took part in the action 
late in the afternoon of the 30th of August. That is, the brigade of General 
Piatt. They did so without orders to that effect from anybody. 

Q. Do you know what became of General Griffin’s brigade, or where it was 
during the battle of the 30th of August? 

A. Of my own knowledge I do not know, except what was reported to me by 
aid-de-camp from Centreville, that the brigade was there. 

Q. It took no part in the action? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. Will you state what effect, if any, was produced, or was liable to be pro¬ 
duced on the fortunes of that battle by the absence of that force ? 

A. A very great effect. I do not know the strength of General Griffin’sjbri- 
gade; but a brigade of four regiments and a battery of artillery, as I understand 
it. That was utterly withdrawn from the field; took no part in the action. 
General Piatt’s command got up very late; too late to do anything, except, in¬ 
deed, to contribute to enable us to maintain our ground until the darkness closed 
the fight. The presence of the other brigade would undoubtedly have been of 
immense benefit. 

Q. Did or did you not regard the withdrawal of these brigades from General 
Porter’s command, under the circumstances, a clear violation of the order issued 
to him to report with his command on the battlefield? 

(Question objected to by a member of the court.) 

The room was cleared, and the court proceeded to deliberate with closed doors. 
After some time the doors were reopened. Whereupon— 

The judge-advocate stated the decision of the court to be that the question 
'should be propounded to the witness. i 

Q. (Repeated.) Did or did you not regard the withdrawal of those brigades 
from General Porter’s command, under the circumstances, a clear violation of 
the order issued to him to report with his command on the battlefield? 

A. Undoubtedly. 

Q. Will you state to the court whether or not vou had made known to Gen- 


eral Porter the position of the enemy’s forces, and your plans and intentions so 
far and so fully that he knew the critical condition of your army, and the im¬ 
portance of rapid movements and prompt and energetic action to secure your 
supplies and to guarantee success? 

A. It has been my habit to talk very freely with all officers having large com¬ 
mands in the army which I commanded. How far I informed General Porter 
I am not now able to say. But I should presume, from my habitual practice, 
and from conversations that I had with him, that he understood pretty fully the 
condition of the army and the position of the various corps of the army. What 
I regarded as a necessity it is altogether possible he might have had a different 
opinion about. Therefore I can not say that he understood the necessity which 
I understood. ■ 

Major-General Porter: 

General : Immediately upon receipt of this order, the precise hour of which 
you will acknowledge, you will mar sh your command to the field of battle of to¬ 
day, and report to me in person for orders. You are to understand that you are 
expected to comply strictly with this order, and to be present on the field within 
three hours after its reception, or after daybreak to-morrow morning. 

GENERAL M’DOWELL TESTIFIES. 

General McDowell, in speaking of the order, says (court-martial 
record, pages 82, 83, and 84): 

That was the only order I received from General Pope that day. 

Q. How did you regard that order; as placing General Porter in subordination 
to you, or as indicating that you were both to act independently of each other 
and each of you in subordination to General Pope ? 

A. I can not say that at that time the order occupied my mind in connection 
with the question of subordination or otherwise. In starting out on this road, 
as I mentioned before. General Porter had started out ahead of me under the 
order he had himself received from General Pope to move with his corps and one 
of my divisions on acertain road, and I think for a certain purpose, though I am 
not certain as to that. At that time I conceived General Porter to be under me. 
When the joint order reached us we were doing what that joint order directed 
us to do. That joint order found the troops in the position in which it directed 
them to be. That joint oi-der gave a discretion to the effect thatif any consider¬ 
able advantages were to be gained by departing from that order it was not to be 
strictly construed. 

I decided that considerable advantages were to be gained by departing from 
that order, and I did not construe it or strictly carry it out. That order contem¬ 
plated a line being formed which was to be joined on to a line that was to come 
up from the east to the west, and have troops on the Gainesville road to attack 
the flank and rear of the enemy, as I understood it, in moving along on the 
Gainesville road. This long line of troops—those who were ahead of me. Gen¬ 
eral Porter’s corps—coming to a halt, I moved along and rode by his corps to the 
head of the column. On the way up to the head of the column I received a note 
from General Buford, addressed to General Ricketts, and to be forwarded to me. 
This note was addressed primarily to General Ricketts, and then to myself, for 
I do not think General Buford knew of General Porter’s being there at the time 
he wrote it. I will read the note: 

Headquarters Cavalry Brigade—9.30 a. m. 

General Ricketts: Seventeen regiments, one battery,five hundred cavalry 
passed through Gainesville thi-ee-quarters of an hour ago on the Centreville 
road. I think this division should join our forces now engaged at once. 

Please forward this. 

JOHN BUFORD, Brigadier-General. 

This was addressed to General Ricketts, who commanded a division. I do 
not know whether it went to General Ricketts direct or came to me direct, or 
came to me from General Ricketts. I infer it had reference to that division. 
General Buford belonged to General Banks’s corps, but had been temporarily 
under my orders the clay before, and had gone up to Thoroughfore Gap with 
Ricketts’s division at the time I expected a force of the enemy to come through 
that gap; and he had fallen back with Ricketts, and at that time, as I under¬ 
stood, occupied a position to our left and front. 

Q,. Did you or not communicate to General Porter the contents of the note 
from General Buford, which you have read ? 

A. Yes, sir; I did communicate it to him. 

Q,. Where was General Porter’s command at that time? 

A. On this road leading from Manassas Junction, by way of Bethlehem chapel 
or church, toward Gainesville. The rear of his column had passed by Bethlehem 
chapel, which is at the junction of the Sudley Spring road with the road from 
Manassas Junction to Gainesville. 

Q. Bethlehem church enables you to identify that position? 

A, Yes, sir. It is at the junction, or the crossing rather, a little beyond the 


71 


crossing of the Sudley Spring, or Gun Spring, or old Carolina road, with the rosi d 
from Manassas Junction to Gainesville. The rear of General Porter’s command 
was beyond that road, the head of it stretching out here in this direction [indi¬ 
cating on the map].* 

Q. Can you speak with any confidence as to the hour of the day at which you 
communicated to General Porter the contents of this note from General Buford ? 

A. It was somewhere before noon, I think. It is impossible for me to keep the 
hours of the day in my mind on such occasions. I have tried it several times but 
have never succeeded except some important things, such as dayWght and dark¬ 
ness. It was communicated a short time after it was received. 

Q,. Did you or not, upon communicating this note, confer with General Porter 
in reference to his movements and your own? 

A. I did. 

Q. Will you state fully what occun-ed in that conference? 

A. On passing the head of General Porter’s column, which was on the road I 
have before mentioned. General Porter was in advance of the head of his column, 
I think, on a slight eminence or knoll or rise of ground, with some of his staff 
near him. 

I rode up to him [Porter]; I saw that he had the same order as myself in the 
joint order. 

Soon after my attention was directed to some skirmishing, I think some drop¬ 
ping shots in front of us. The country in front of the position where General 
Porter was when I joined him was open for several hundred yards, and near, 
as I suppose, by seeing the dust coming upabove the trees, the Warrenton turn- 
I)ike, which was covered from view by the woods. How deep those woods were 
1 do not know. It did not seem at that time to be a great distance to that road— 
the Warrenton turnpike. I had an impression at the time that those skirmish¬ 
ers where engaged with some of the enemy near that road. I rode with General 
Porter from the position he occupied, eastward, to the right—that is, the column 
being somewhat west of north, and I going east, made an angle with the line of 
troops on the road. 

The joint order of General Pope was discussed between us—the point to be 
held in view, of not going so far that we should not be al)le to get beyond Bull 
Run that night; that was one point,, the road being blocked with General Por¬ 
ter’s troops, from where the head of his column Avasback to Bethlehem church; 
the sound of battle, which seemed to be at its height on our right toward Grove- 
V ton ; the note of General Buford, indicating the force that had passed through 
GainesA’ille, and, as he said, was moving toward GroA'eton, where the battle was 
going on, the dust ascending above the trees, seeming to indicate that force to 
be not a great distance from the head of General Porter’s column. 

I am speaking now of that force of the enemy referred to by General Buford 
as passing doAvn the Warrenton turnpike toward Groveton. I understand this 
note of General Buford to refer to a force of the enemy. The question Avithme 
was hoAv soonest Avithin the limit fixed by General Pope this force of ours could 
be applied against the enemy. General Porter made a remark to me which 
shoAved me that he had no question but that the enemy Avas in his immediate 
front. I said to him : “ You put your force in here, and I Avill take mine up the 
Sudley Spring road on the left of the troops engaged at that point Avith the en¬ 
emy,” or words to that effect. I left Genei-al Porter Avith the belief and under¬ 
standing that he Avould put his force in at that point. 

I moved back by the shortest road I could find to the head of my own troops, 
who were near Bethlehem church, and immediately turned them up north on 
the Sudley Spring road to join General Reynolds’s division, which belonged to 
my command, and Avhich I had directed to co-operate with General Sigel in the 
moA’ements he (General Sigel) Avas making at the time I left him in the morn¬ 
ing. After seeing the larger part of my troops on the Sudley Spring road I rode 
forward to the head of the column. I met a messenger from General Pope. I 
stopped him and saw that he had an order addressed to General Porter alone. 
I do not recollect more than the general purport or tenor of that order. It Avas 
to the effect that he should throAV his corps upon the right flank or rear of the 
enemy from the position he then occupied. When I say right flank, I do so 
merely because of my knowledge of the position of the forces, not from any 
recollection of what that order contained on that point. 

Q. Was or Avas not the messenger to Avhom you refer who bore that order a 
staff officer, Capt. Douglas Pope? 

A. I do not recollect; I do not think it was. 

Q. You did not meet on the way, or take from the hands of any other staff 
officer on that day, an order from General Pope to General Porter except this 
one, did you? 

A. No, sir; and I did not take this from his hands in one sense. I examined 
it, gave it back to him, and he went on his way. 

Q Is Captain Pope personally known to you ? 

A. Yes sir; he is. My impression is that it was not Captain Pope, but I will 
not be confident. I do not remember Avho it was.... 

Q. I will read you an order which is set forth in specification 1 of charge 2. 


(The order was read accordingly.) Do you or not recognize that as the order 
which you saw and read ? 

A. I can only say that the order that I saw in passing was of that same import. 
Whether that was the order or not I can not say. 

Q. You have said that the accused made an observation to you which showed 
that he was satisfied that the enemy was in his immediate front; will you state 
what that observation was? 

A. I do not know that I can repeat it exactly, and I do not know that the ac¬ 
cused meant exactly what the remark might seem to imply. The observation 
was to the effect—putting his hand in the direction of the dust rising above the 
tops of the trees—“ We can not go in there anywhere without getting into a 
fight.” 

(i. What reply did you make to that remark ? 

A. I think to this effect: ‘‘ That is what we came here for.” 

Q. Were there any obstacles in the way of the advance on the part of General 
Porter’s command upon the flank of the enemy? 

A. That depends upon what you would call obstacles. A wood is an obstacle. 

Q. I mean insuperable obstacles, in a military sense. 

A. I do not think we so regarded it at that time. I did not. 

Q. Was or not the battle raging at that time ? 

A. The battle was raging on our right; that is, if you regard the line of the 
road from Bethlehem church to Gainesville to be substantially northwest, the 
battle was raging to the right and east of that line at Groveton. 

Q,. At what hour did you arrive upon the battlefield with your command and 
take part in the engagement? 

A. I can not say as to hours. 

Q. As nearly as you can ? 

A. It was in the afternoon. I do not know at what time the sun set. I should 
not be able to fix the hour. It may have been 4 o’clock or 5 o’clock. One of my 
divisions, which had been the day before up to Thoroughfare, and the day be¬ 
fore that on a long march, extending to late in the night, and which had started 
that day, Friday, and had marched since 1 o’clock in the morning, had its rear 
guard .some distance behind, and that rear guard did not get up to INIanassas 
until the next juorning, though it got within a couple of miles of that place. 
That was the rear guard of the corps, in that instance a brigade. 

Q,. Did vou or not afterward see General Porter during that engagement of the 
29th. 

A. No, sir; I did not. 

Q,. Did he or not, with his command, take any part in that battle? 

A. I do not know, of my own knowledge. 

Q. What would probably have been the effect upon the fortunes of that battle 
if, between 5 and 6 o’clock in the afternoon, General Porter, with his whole force 
had thrown himself upon the right wing of the enemy, as directed in this order 
of 4:30 p. m. of the 29th of August, which has been read to you? 

A. It is a mere opinion that you ask? 

Q. YeSj sir. 

A. I think it would have been decisive in our favor. 

Q. Did any considerable portion of the confederate forces attack General Pope’s 
left on Saturday, passing over the ground that General Porter would have passed 
over had he attacked the enemy’s right on Friday ? 

A. I can not say. They may have done so. I do not know. 

Q,. All the localities of which you have spoken in your testimony are in the 
State of Virginia, are they not? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Examination by the judge-advocate here closed. 

Examination by the Accused : 

Q. Will you say whether you found General Porter’s corps in the position 
where you expected to find it when you joined him the first time you saw him 
on the 29th of August? 

A. I did not think anything about it; it was not a question with me. 

0,. State if, when you found him at the place where the joint order required 
him to be, you stated to him, or thought, that you found in his front a difierent 
state of affairs than you had expected to find. 

A. I do not recollect of such a statement. 

Q. Try to recollect if, upon that occasion, you did not say to him, in substance, 
that he was too far in the front, and that the position in which he "was was not a 
position in which to fight a battle, or anything to that effect? 

A. I do not recollect. 

Q. Are you sure you did not ? 

A. I have no recollection of any question about that place not being the one 
to fight a battle. Something may have been said about not going further to¬ 
ward Gainesville, with reference to falling behind Bull Run that night. 

Q,. If anything was said in relation to the facility of getting back to Bull Run 
that night,'do you remember whether it was that the accused was too far in the 
front, or would be too far in the front if he moved farther on? 


73 


A. It was hardly a question of going further on. It was more a question of 
turning to the right and going against the enemy than passing down the War- 
renton turnpike. 

Q,. You say that something might have been said by the accused about getting 
back to Bull Run; are you to be understood as saying from recollection that he 
was told to keep in view his ability to get back to Bull Run? 

A. That was the expre.ssion in the joint order. 

Q. Y’as it used by you ? 

A. We referred to that point. 

Q. hen did you first see the order of which you have spoken in your testi¬ 
mony in chief, that of 4:30 p. m. of the 29th of August, which directed the accused 
to turn the right flank and attack the enemy in the rear? You have been un¬ 
derstood as saying that that was the effect of the joint order. That is not your 
meaning, is it? 

A. It was the effect of the joint order as modified by me, when I left General 
Porter, .so far as I had the power to modify that order, and so far as the under¬ 
standing with which I left him at the time. ' 

Q. Are you to be understood as saying that before you saw the order to General 
Porter of 4:30 p. m. of the 29th of August, you, under the discretion you sup¬ 
posed was reposed in you by the joint order to yourself and General Porter, had 
directed him to attack the enemy’s right flank and rear? 

A. To that effect, yes, sir; I knew I had that discretion ; I did not suppose it. 
This is the clause under which I supposed, if you prefer that term, I had that 
discretion : “ If any considerable advantages are to be gained by departing from 
this order, it will not be strictly carried out.” That joint order contemplated 
General Porter’s corps and my own to be employed diflerently from the way I 
had arranged when I left General Porter, which arrangement was to separate 
them, leaving him alone on the Gainesville road, while I went up the Studley 
Spring road. 

Q. Did you under that joint order suppose that you were authorized to take 
any part of General Porter’s command and place it in such a position that it 
would not have been in the power’of his command to reach Bull Run that night 
or the following morning? 

A. That question, if I understand it, did not come up in my mind. The order 
itself stated that one thing was to be held in view. I will read that part of the 
order. ” One thing must be held in view, that the troops must occupy a posi¬ 
tion from which they can reach Bull Run to-night or by morning.” 

Q,. Was it your understanding of that joint order of the 29th of August that 
you could, under that order, direct General Porter to take his command into a 
position from which that ‘‘one thing” could not be accomplished? 

A. Certainly not. The order does not say that I should disobey the order, and 
that is what the question amounts to. 

Q. Have you any recollection that after you left the accused on the 29th, and 
took with you King’s division, the accused sent a message to you requesting that 
that division should be permitted to stay with his command ? 

A. I received no such message. 

Q,. Will you say whether, in consequence of a message or otherwise, you sent 
a message to the accused with your compliments,telling him that you were going 
to the right and should take King with you, and that he, the accused, should re¬ 
main where he was for the present, and if he had to fall back to do so on your • 
left? 

A. I do not recollect. 

Q. Are you able to say that you are certain that you did not send such a mes¬ 
sage? 

Q. That is my impression, that I did not. 

Q. What distance did you march with that portion of your command which 
you took to the battlefield from the point where you left the accu.sed to the point 
upon the battlefield that you reached with that portion of your command ? 

A. Somewhere about four miles. 

Q. What road did you travel, or did you travel any route known as a road? 

A. The troops went by the Sudley Springs road from Bethlehem church. 

Q,. When you left the accused where you found him on the 29th of Aixgust, 
were you at that time advised that Longstreet’s corps or any other corps of the 
confederate army was marching on to unite with the right of Jackson ? 

A. I did not know anything about Longstreet’s corps or Jackson’s corps. I 
have mentioned before that I receiv’^ed a note from General Buford that sev'en- 
teen regiments, a battery, and five hundred cavalry were marching from Gaines¬ 
ville upon Groveton. To whom they belonged or to whom they were going was 
not a matter of which I was informed. 

Q. Do you know now whether the information given by General Buford in 
the note to which you have just referred was correct ? 

A. I know nothing more now than I knew then; I believed it then to be correct. 

Q. Will you state, if the force to which General Buford referi’ed in his note 
actually passed through Gainesville at thirty minutes past 9 o’clock on the 29th 
of August, how long you suppose it would have taken to have joined the force 
in front, which, as we have supposed, was commanded by Jackson? 


74 


A. It would depend upon how fast they marched. 

Q. I know that. 

A. I do not know how fast they marched, so I can not tell. 

Q. How long would it have taken them if they had marched as fast as you 
think they could have marched ? 

A. I have formed no estimate as to how fast those troops can march. 

Q,. If those troops, in fact, marched as fast as you have marched your own 
troops upon any occasion, how long would it have taken them? 

A. To go from Gainsville? 

Q,. Yes, sir. 

A. Without stops, without obstacles, formations, or checks of any kind, simply 
marching along the road ? 

Q,. The question has reference to the country as it is, a distance of, as you say, 
about four miles. 

A. It was somewhere between four and six miles. Troops march readily 
from two miles to two miles and a half an hour, if there is nothing to prevent 
them, if they are not disturbed by stopping up the roads with wagons, getting 
breakfast, or something of that kind. 

Q,. From your knowledge of the actual condition of the country over which 
that force was supposed to be passing, can you tell whether there were any ob¬ 
stacles to their march, and, if there were any, what were they ? 

A. Not having gone over the road, I do not know anything about the obsta¬ 
cles, one way or the other. 

Q. Do you know what was the average number of the regiments of the con¬ 
federates—each regiment, I mean ? 

A. Do you mean the strength of each regiment ? 

Q,. Yes, sir. 

A. They consisted of all the way from two hundred, or even as low, as one 
hundred and fifty, up to one thousand or even twelve hundred. I have taken a 
great deal of pains at different times in examining deserters, scouts, spies, ne¬ 
groes, and prisoners to ascertain that matter, and I find that nothing varies so 
much as the strength of the regiments on the other side. I have the impression 
that they were not very strong; that their average was certainly not greater than 
our own, if it was as great; but that it varies at different times. Before they had 
their conscription it was very low; after the conscription their regiments were 
quite full. I have no personal knowledge of the matter at all. I give the sources 
from which I obtained this estimate. 

Q,. Have you a knowledge now of what was the actual force of the enemy un¬ 
der the command of Jackson, or did you know that Jackson was in command 
of the enemy ? 

A. I did not know that Jackson was there; I have been told that he was there. 
I do not know what his force was. 

Q,. And do you know or not what was the amount of the confederate force 
that was coming up? 

A. Coming up when and where? 

Q. As stated in the note from General Buford? 

A. Nothing more than he told me in that note. 

Q,. How long had you left the accused on the 29th of August when you saw the 
order dated at 4.30 p.m. of that day, which was handed you by some officer? 

A. I can not tell; I do not recollect. I rode from the head of his column back 
to the head of my own column, and as rapidly as I could get my troops into po¬ 
sition on the other road, and waited until the larger part of them had entered 
upon that road. Then, on riding by them to go to the head of my column on 
the Sudley Springs road, I met this messenger. I can not tell how long all this 
took. I can not fix the time when I left General Porter, and, of course, can not 
fix the time when I saw this messenger. 

Q,. How often during this campaign of General Pope in Virginia, of whom you 
have spoken, had you seen the accused before you saw him on the 28th of August? 

A. I had not seen him during that campaign before I saw him on the 29th of 
August. 

Q. How long were you together during that interview of the 29th of August? 

A. I can not fix the exact time. We rode together some distance; perhaps a 
mile; perhaps it may have been more; I do not recollect now. 

Q. Was it five, ten, fifteen, or twenty minutes? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Which? 

A. You may put it at fifteen minutes, or at twenty minutes. 

Q,. During that conversation, that interview, did the accused say anything or 
do anything from which you inferred disloyalty upon his part, or unwillingness 
to perform his duty under the command of General Pope? 

A. No, sir; what he said was the reverse He professed to have but one feel¬ 
ing, which was that for the success of his country. This was said, I think, in 
reference to the embarrassment which I have before alluded to, about General 
King’s division going under him. General Porter. It was not a question with 
me about loyalty or disloyalty; I never think of such things; what I mean is 
this: I assume everybody to be loyal; my suspicions do not run that way. The 


75 

suspicion that persons who hold commissions as general officers in the Army are 
disloyal does not occur to me. 

Q. It is not recollected what you said in relation to the embarrassment you 
speak of growing out of King’s division being under General Porter’s command. 
Will you state what it was that you understood him to refer to? 

A. The embarrassment was rather on my side than on his; the embarrassment 
I refer to was this: I came down to take King’s division and bring it up along 
with my other division, that is, with Reynolds’s division, then engaged at 
Groveton. I found it with an order to go under General Porter in another 
direction; that was what produced the embarrassment. General Porter had 
nothing to do with that embarrassment; I may say that we were both embar¬ 
rassed, I at finding one of my divisions under his command, and he at finding 
himself under my command. I do not know that “embarrassment” is the 
proper word to use; what I meant was that I found things different from what 
I expected to find. 

When I spoke of one of my divisions going under him, he suggested that I was 
the senior officer, as between himself and myself, and that I could take the com¬ 
mand of the whole force—his corps and my own force—and we went forward at 
first in that way before the joint order reached us. I did not go to that place ex¬ 
pecting to find General Porter; I went there to find my own division and I found 
General Porter there with an order to take one of my divisions under his com¬ 
mand. That was not foreseen by the general-in-chief of that army, who was 
absent, and the matter was solved in the way I have stated, I commanding Gen¬ 
era! Pvrter s corps and my own division. We then received the joint order, 
which directed the very things which we had ourselves done. The order was 
sent by General Pope upon the receipt of a note from me, in reference to this 
matter of my division. 

Q. Do you know from what point King’s division had marched on that day, 
or the day before, in order to get to the point where you found it on the 29th of 
August? 

A. It had marched from some point or some place on the Warrenton turnpike, 
between Gainesville and Grove ton, where it had an engagement with the ene¬ 
my, back to Manassas Junction, having left, as I was informed by General Rey¬ 
nolds, about 1 o’clock on the morning of Friday the 29th of August. It had 
been ordered the day before to march from Buckland Mills, which is beyond 
Gainesville, to Manassas Junction. Before it had reached Bethlehem church 
it was ordered to move on to Centreville, in compliance with orders from Gen¬ 
eral Pope, and had been sent from the road—or I do not know that it was on 
any road, but from the position where the order reached it.—north to the War¬ 
renton turnpike, and thence to move along that pike to Centreville. It had 
become engaged with the enemy in the evening, and then, as I have before 
stated, fell back the next morning, starting at 1 o’clock, as I iinderstood from 
General Reynolds. These facts I learned on the morning of Friday the 29th, 
from General Reynolds, who had been personally with King’s division ; had 
ridden over to it the night before. 

Q,. Do you recollect whether you informed the accused at that interview that 
General Ricketts had been driven from Thoroughfare Gap, and that General 
King had been driven from Gainesville by the enemy? 

A. I do not recollect having used such expressions. I recollect having in¬ 
formed him of the fact that General King’s division, as I had learned from Gen¬ 
eral Reynolds, had fallen back that morning, and also that General Ricketts’s 
division had fallen back from Thoroughfare Gap. At the time I saw General 
Porter I had not got up with either of these divisions. I found them after my 
interview with him. 

Q. Did you then know that Generals Ricketts and King had met with the 
enemy, the one at Thoroughfare Gap and the other at or near Gainesville, and 
that they were then falling back in consequence of the enemy? 

A. I knew they had met the etiemy the night before, but at the time I met 
General Porter I knew nothing of the details of the engagements which they 
had had with the enemy, nor do I recollect having said to General Porter, or 
having known, anything about the motives for General King’s falling back 
to Manassas from this position on the road between Gaine.sville and Groveton; 
I have an idea that there was a question of supplies connected with the falling 
back from that point. General Reynolds had told me that he had told General 
King that he would be alongside of him in the morning. At the time I saw Gen¬ 
eral Porter the whole subject of the engagements of the evening before, except 
the mere fact there had been engagements, was unknown to me; I mean the 
details in regard to those engagements. 

Q. You have stated, or have been understood to have stated, that when you 
were with the accused, on the 29th of August, the battle was going on, and you 
could hear it. Will you state if you heard any other firing than that of artillery ? 

A. I do not recollect about that now. The noise was very decided, and dis¬ 
tant from where we were, I should suppose, about four miles. 

ti. Do you know when the infantry firing on that day commenced; was it, or 
not,about 4 o’clock? , . 

A. I think it was m'uch earlier than that; I have only one thing to guide me, 


and that is General Reynold’s report; I can refer to that and find out more par¬ 
ticularly if it is desired. ' 

The examination by the accused was here closed. 

Thereupon the court adjourned to 11 a. m. to-morrow. 


The examination of Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell was then resumed, as follows: 

Examination by the Court : 

Q,. Did or did not General Porter put his troops in action at the point indicated 
by you, at the time he said he could not go in anywhere there without getting 
into a fight? 

A. Of my own knowledge I know nothing of what General Porter did after 
I left him. 

Q,. I n departing from a strict obedience to the joint order of the 29th of August, 
did you or not extend that departure beyond your own immediate command; 
that is, did you change the order with respect to General Porter’s corps? 

A. General Porter and I started out from Manassas with the understanding that 
under the articles of war applicable to such cases I had the command of the 
whole force—bis own and my own. We each of us received a joint order from 
General Pope,ourtben commander-in-ehief, which order, while itdid not at the 
time change tlie relations between General Porter and myself, seemed to imply 
that those relations were not to be constant, were not to continue. 

1 decided, under the latitude allowed in that order, that General Porter should 
post his troops in to the right of where the head of his column then lay, and 
that I would take mine away from the road on which our two commands then 
lay up the Sudley Springs road into the battle, in this way dissolving the joint 
operations of our two corps, and from the moment I left General Porter I con¬ 
sidered he was no longer under my immediate control, or under my immediate 
command, or my direct orders, but that he came under those of our common 
commander-in-chief, we not then being on the same immediate ground. The 
article to which I refer is the sixty-second article of war, which directs that 
when troops happen to meet, the senior officer commands the whole. I con¬ 
sidered that article of war to apply up to the time that I left General Porter and 
broke my command away from his, after which I conceived that his relations 
were direct to the commander-in-chief; therefore, in answer to the question, to 
that extent I did interfere with his corps, by separating mine from it, and also 
by indicating where 1 thought his corps ought to be applied against the enemy. 

Q,. Did you report to General Pope any change you had made in the opera¬ 
tions of that joint order? 

A. No further than by bringing my troops uj), reporting to him that they were 
there, and receiving his orders. His order to General Porter direct met me on 
my way to join the main army. I did not know at that time that General Pope 
was at that particular place. 

Q,. When you saw the order from General Pope to General Porter, the one sul>- 
sequent to the joint order, did you give or had you given any order to General 
Porter which would interfere with his obedience to it? 

A. None. 

Q,. The orders you had given to General Porter were not in opposition, or at 
least not of a different character froih the one that came to him from General 
Pope? 

A. They concurred. Tire arrangements that I supposed to exist when I left 
General Porter concurred with the order which I afterward saw from General 
Pope to General Porter. They were to the same effect, except as to details, which 
General Pope may have given. 1 gave no details. 

Q. Would or would not the presence of General Pope, an officer superior in 
command to both yourself and General Porter, render inoperative or inapplica¬ 
ble the article of war to which you have referred ? 

A. It would depend upon his pre.sence, whether it was immediate or not. 

0,. We speak of such pre.sence as existed then. 

A. We did not so con.sider it. General Pope, according to the note we received, 
was at Ceaitreville, which I suppose was some six miles off, and we were goirig 
away from him. I will mention further that the day before nearly a similar case 
happened, when General Sigel and myself were together atBuckland Mills, and 
I commanded General Sigel. That was done by a direct order from General 
Pope, before given. Still, it would have been the same if he had not given that 
order. 

Q. Could the accused have engaged in the battle according to your order and 
according to the subsequent order of General Pope and still have fallen back to 
Bull Run within the time named in the joint order to yourself and the accused? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. From your knowledge of the nature of the country between General Por¬ 
ter’s column and the forces engaged on the 29th of August, was there anything 
to have prevented the accused from making an attack upon the enemy’s right or 
rear, as directed by General Pope ? If so, state what it was. 

A. My knowledge of the country is derived principally, first, from having gone 


77 


over the railroad from Manassas to Gainesville in a car or in a locomotive, which 
gave me but little idea of it, as I was engaged while going over with matters 
which prevented my paying attention to the country; next, in marching from 
Buckland Mills to Gainesville, and from Gainesville east along the Warrenton 
turnpike for a mile or two—I do not remember the exact distance—then turning 
off to the right and south, and going across the country to Bethlehem Church, 
and thence to Manassas; then from the fact that General Reynolds’s division, 
which had the lead on the occasion that I refer to, going from Gainesville toward 
Groveton, had gone further on that road than I went myself, had turned to the 
right and gone toward Bethlehem Church; and from the fact that General King’s 
division, which had gone on that same road toward Groveton from Gainesville, 
and had turned down south of that road, had again gone north on lo that road, 
had engaged the enemy at a certain place, had fallen back to Manassas from 
that place, which place I learned was nearly reached, if not quite, on Friday, the 
day of the battle, by the troops moving from Groveton west; and from the fact 
that the enemy’s force had moved to the south on Saturday, and turned our left 
on that day. These movemeirts by two divisions of my corps, my own move¬ 
ments, and the movements of the enemy gave me the belief that troops could 
move through the country comprised between the Warrenton turnpike and the 
Sudley Springs road and the road from Betlilehem church to Gainesville. I will 
mention further that that country is a mixture of woods, clear ground, andhills, 
and that it is easy for troops to march without being seen or seeing the enemy. 

Q. Does the country which you have just described include that over which 
General Porter was required to march in obeying the order of 4.30 p. m. from Gen¬ 
eral Pope to attack the enemy? 

A. Yes, sir. I would say that I do not know that order by that hour. 

Q. Please state the ground on which you formed the opinion that if the accused 
had attacked the right wing of the rebels, as he was ordered, the battle would 
have been decisive in our favor. 

A. Because on the evening of that day I thought the result was decidedly in 
our favor, as it was. But, admitting that it was merely equally balanced, I think, 
and thought, that if the corps of General Porter, reputed one of the best, if not 
the best, in the service, consisting of between twenty and thirty regiments and 
some eight batteries, had been added to the efforts made by the others, the re¬ 
sult would have been in our favor very decidedly. 

Q. Was there anything besides mere advantage in numbers from which that 
result would have followed? 

A. And position. 

Q,. What particular advantage in position was there ? 

A. The position in which that force would have been applied, while the main 
body was so hotly engaged in front, would have been an additional powerful 
reason for so supijosing. 

Q. When the accused said to you that he could not go anywhere there with¬ 
out getting into a fight, did he or not appear to be averse to engaging the enemy ? 

A. I can not say that it made that impression on me, though in giving my an¬ 
swer I took the yiew that he did so imply and made the remark ; but I did not 
think he was averse to engaging the enemy. I mean by that that that was not 
seriously a question with me, for when I left him I thought he was going to 
engage and would engage the enemy. 

Q. Had General Porter taken part in the action of August 29 would you not 
have been likely to have known it? 

A. I heard that he did fire some artillery, and I did not hear his fire ; so that 
he might have gone into action without my knowing it at that time, because 
where I was there was a great deal of noise; and the noise that his engagement 
might have made might have been in a direction which would have confounded 
it with other noise. 

(i. Up to what hour did the battle continue on that day, and how long was your 
command engaged in it. 

A. It continued until after dark, or continued to such an hour in the evening 
when you could see the fiash rather than the smoke. Of my command part of 
King’s division was actively engaged to the front for, I should think, something 
like an hour, it may have been more, before the battle terminated. I speak of 
the active collision. 

GENERAL B. S. ROBERTS’S TE.STIMONY. 

'rhis is the testimony of General B. S. Roberts (court-martial record, 
page 50): 

Q. AVhat do you know, if anything, in regard to the order issued by General 
Pope to General Porter, set forth in the third specification of the first charge, 
bearing date4.30 p. m. of the 29th August? 

A. About 4.30 p. m. of the 29th of August it was supposed by General Pope that 
General Porter was near the field of battle. The direction in which the first 
order required him to move would have brought him, as was supposed, near 
the field of battle before that hour; and I had noticed, in the direction where 1 
knew General Porter was expected, the fiash and the smoke from some pieces 


78 


of artillery, and I inferred it to be artillery from General Porter, who was ex¬ 
pected to attack there about that time. But it very soon ceased, and General 
Pope then wrote another order to General Porter, which, according to my recol¬ 
lection, stated that the direction of his movements would bring him on the ene¬ 
my’s right flank or rear, and that he wished him to press forward and attack 
immediately. 

Q. Is or is not the order to which you now refer the one set forth in the third 
specification of the first charge? 

A. That is the order to which I refer. 

Q. Will you state what yon know, if anything, in regard to General Porter’s 
having either obeyed or disobeyed tho.se orders? 

A. 1 know that General Porter did not attack as he was rlirected to attack in 
that order. I was on that part of the field several times, and was expecting every 
moment that the attack would be made, and was watching for it with a great 
deal of an.viety, but it was not made. 

Q. Did you continue upon the field until the engagement closed? 

A. I was on the field all day, and remained on the field all that night. 

Q. What were the results of the battle when the night closed in? 

A. General Pope’s troops when night closed in, occupied cjuite a portion of 
the field from which the enemy had been driven, and in my opinion, although 
the battle was not a decisive one, the advantages of the day were in favor of 
General Pope’s army. 

Q,. In view of what the army had accomplished during the battle of the day 
in the absence of General Porter’s command, what do you suppose would have 
been the result upon the fortunes of the battle if General Porter had attacked, 
as ordered by the order of 4.30 p. in., either on the right flank of or the rear of the 
enemy? 

(The accused objected to the question. 

The court was thereupon cleared. 

Some time after the court was reopened the judge-advocate announced that 
the court determined that the que.stion shall be answered. 

The question was again propounded to the witness, as follows :) 

Q,. In view of what the army had accomplished during the battle of the day in 
the absence of General Porter’s command, what do you suppose would have 
been the results upon the fortunes of the battle if General Porter had attacked, 
as ordered by the order of 4.30 p. m., either on the right flank or the rear of the 
enern y ? 

A.. 1 do not doubt at all that it would have resulted in the defeat, if not in the 
capture, of the main army of the confederates that were on the field at that time. 

GENKRAL DANIEL BUTTERFIELD’S TESTIMONY. 

General Daniel Butterfield, one of his own commanders, testifies as 
follows: 

Q,. State whether the point at which you were directed was on the same side 
of the Manassas Itailroad or on the other side from the one upon which you 
were at the time. 

A. The point at which I was directed was across the railroad. 

Q. Which direction from the point from which you were moving? 

A. To the right, between Groveton and Gainesville; I undei'stood it to strike 
between Groveton and Gainesville, keeping the movement toward Gainesville, 
covering this road that led up to Gainesville, a dirt road; and the leaning, if 
anything, was to be to the right rather than to the left (road luarkedon the map). 
And in pursuance of that order I put my brigade in motion, saw that it started 
out, and then proceeded in advance my.self with my staff to make a personal re¬ 
connaissance, to look up a po.sition and see whatever difficulties might be in the 
way. I understood myself not at liberty to bring on this engagement until the 
division could be deployed behind, unless I could gain a position, finding affairs 
that I could handle in front of me. 

I went out personally with my staff after .seeing the head of my column in mo¬ 
tion, leaving it in charge of the senior colonel, Lansing, of the Seventeenth New 
York. I proceeded until I came up in closeproximity to the enemy’s skirmishers, 
when one of my staff officers asked me if I proposed to tackle the enemy alone. 
I .said no; I had troops behind ; I turned around, and, to my astonishment, saw 
that mj* brigade that I had put in motion, and seen well out over toward this dry 
branch, were not there—had returned and were out of sight. I returned with 
great rapidity and considerable temper. I did not understand why my command 
had left me; I came back and found that my brigade had moved off to the right 
in these woods; which were very thick. There was a little road running along 
here, and they were out in front of this and had come to a halt. That is, they 
were back of Dawkin’s Branch, back on the high land, on this side of the rail¬ 
road—south side of the railroad—in the woods. I asked my senior officer what 
it meant—his returning without any order from me; he said he had received 
orders directly to return, and not to make the advance. 

I was in no very pleasant humor about that method of proceeding. He of¬ 
fered as his excuse that the orders had come direct from a staff officer of Gen- 


79 


eral Porter, or from General Porter himself. I asked where General Porter was. 
He saifi he had gone in this direction, in the woods, with General McDowell. I 
met one of General Porter’s staff officers and entered a complaint against his 
or<h*r withdrawing my troops without the order coming from me when I was in 
front. I received answer that it was a sudden movement in consequence of 
sojuething that had occurred between General Porter and General Mc Dowell. 

0,. You were informed by the staff’ officer that that was the reason it was 
given? 

A. That that was the reason the order was given. We then were moved a lit¬ 
tle farther to the right, then returned to the left; then we went up and took po¬ 
sition again under same order over on the same ground, and were withdrawn 
again. These different movements occupied until dark. Then we w'ent into 
camp rather with the expectation, as I judged from what came to me from Gen¬ 
eral Morell, of an attack from the enemy upon us. 

COL. B. P. smith’s testimony. 

Col. B. F. Smith testifies: 

By the Judge-Advocate; 

Q,. Will you state your position in the military service of the United States? 

A. I am a captain of the Sixth Regular Infantry and colonel of the One hun¬ 
dred and twenty-sixth Regiment of Ohio Volunteers. 

Q. Will you state to the court whether you were serving with any part of the 
Army of Virginia, commanded by Major-General Pope, on the daysof the27th, 
2Sth, 29th, and 30th of August last;'and, if so, in what brigade and division? 

A. I was serving in Colonel Chapman’s brigade of General Sykes’s division. 

Q. In what direction did that brigade march on Friday, the 29th of August 
last? 

A. We had marched from Fredericksburg by way of Warrenton Junction, and 
arrived at Manassas Junction, I think, on the 29th of August, the day before the 
battle of Bull Run. We arrived exactly at the place where the railroad had been 
destroyed; the wreck of the train was there, and there we halted. Late in the 
day, in the morning, we retraced our steps to the branch railroad running, I 
think, toward Gainesville or Manassas Gap, and followed the direction of that 
road some few miles. We then halted on some rising ground, where we could 
see the country beyond, over the woods, the tops of the trees. It was a wooded 
country. While we were halted there a battery of the rebels opened upon us, 
but fired some three or four shells only, I think; there may have been a half a 
dozen. Our brigade then marched into a field and the regiments were placed in 
order of battle. I recollect that General Morell’s division was in our advance, 
on the lower ground. 

Some of our pieces replied to this rebel battery. I received permission from 
the commanding officer of my regiment to go to a more elevated piece of ground, 
a few rods distant, and while there I saw our batteries reply. A short time after¬ 
ward, probably a half an hour,‘We received orders to retrace our steps and march 
back in the direction we had come. We then marched back to near Manassas 
Junction, and camped in the woods alongside this branch railroad I have men¬ 
tioned. That night I was placed on duty as the field officer of the pickets of 
Sykes’s division. About daybreak the pickets were called in, and we marched 
toward the battlefield of Bull Run, and were engaged in that battle. 

Q,. What was the eff’ect of the reply of your guns to this attack of the rebel bat¬ 
tery? 

A. It seemed to silence that battery, and it withdrew. At least that was the 
impression I had at the time. 

Q. What amount of infantry force, if any, did there seem to be supporting this 
rebel battery? 

A. I did not see them. 

Q. Before you received orders to fall back and retrace your steps along this 
road, had or had not this rebel battery been completely silenced? 

A. I think it had been. 

Q,. Were there not at that time clouds of dust in view showing an advance of 
the enemy ? 

A. Clouds of dust were distinctly visible farther over beyond the trees. Whether 
there were troops advancing or whether they were moving in another direction 
I could not tell. I could see distinctly the clouds of dust, as if there was a large 
body of troops moving. 

Q,. Did you or not see the accused. General Porter, at the head of the column 
on that day ? 

A. No,sir; I do not recollect of seeing General Porter at all that day, 
TESTIMONY OP SOLOMON THOMAS. 

Solomon Thomas, called by the recorder, being duly sworn, testified 
as follows: 

Direct examination: 

Q. Where were you on August 29,1862? 


80 

A. With. General Fitz-John Porter’s corps, Eighteenth Massachusetts, Martin- 
dale’s brigade, Morell’s division. - 

Q. Do you recollect being at Manassas Junction on that day? 

A. I do. 

Q. Did you move oflF on the Gainesville road ? ^ 

A. We moved up on the line of the railroad. We moved more in a direct line 
infront, though we Avere intending to move to the right. 

Q. How far upon that road did your regiment go? , 

A. We went upon that road nearly to a small creek, or what had been origi¬ 
nally a small creek; it was dry, or nearly so, at that Vime. 

Q. What did you do there? 

A. We then halted, and the Thirteenth New Yofk, or a part of it, which was 
thrown out as skirmishers—a battery was planted in our front a little to our 
right—in the tields, and as the skirmishers of the Thirteenth advanced we were 
deployed to the right, into the woods; our right rested in the woods. We halted 
and lay down. This was probably 10 o’clock in the morning I should say; 
might have been a little later. 

Q. How long did you remain there? 

A. We remained in that position—I should say it was half past 4 when we were 
called to attention and right-about-face, and moved out from that position, left in 
front, upon the same road that we moved down on in the morning. I don’t know 
the distance, but we had been marching some time. 

ii.. Hack toward Manassas Junction? 

A. Yes; toward Manassas Junction—when an officer came riding from the 
Manassas Junction way, having a dispatch, and rode up to General Porter, and 
handed him the dispatch. Then we were commanded to halt; we did. General 
Porter dismounted, and sat down by the side of the road and leaned his back 
against a tree—quite a large tree—and read the dispatch, and went up and re¬ 
mounted and called us to attention and right-about-face. We marched back upon 
the same road Ave had come on, moving then right in front, until Ave came near 
the position of the road Avhere we had moved into the woods on the right in the 
morning. We then moved out to the left, into an open held. The artillery was 
brought into the held, and parked in our front. We were formed in line, and 
ordered to stack arms; we did so. Orders Avere receiA'ed that there should be 
no hres made to make any coffee; that we were to remain perfectly quiet. The 
adjutant received orders that if there were any orders received during the night 
he should deliver those orders to the commander of each regiment in person, so 
there should be no loud words spoken ; and AA’e Avere to remain. Me and some 
of my comrades spread our blankets and Avere preparing to lie doAvn for the 
night. As we sat down, before Ave got ready to lie down, we heard upon our 
right a shout Avhich we knew was a charge—from theshout; then Aveheardmus- 
ketry discharges. 

Q,. JVfiat did you understand at that time f 

A. I felt at that time that Ave Avere expected to charge on the reAir and flank incon- 
iunction with what was going on in front. 

Q,. About Avhat time of the day, in reference to sunset, AA^as it that you were 
halted on your Avay back to Manassas Junction, and that an officer came up with 
a dispatch ? 

A. I should judge from the position of the sun it must have been somewhere 
from 5 to half past 5 o’clock. 

Q. During the day did you hear any indications of <i hattie going on ; if so, what 
were they, and where were they? 

A. In our immediate front we heard an occasional discharge of musketry, and, in 
fact, there were pieces of railroad iron fired from a rebel battery right over our 
right, and tAA’^o pieces lodged in the rear of where I lay, probably forty feet in our 
rear. Some of the boys went and dug them up, and one of them was eighteen inches in 
length, the other was abotit fifteen. We thought of bringing them home, but they were 
rather heavy, so AA'e left them on the field. Then, while Ave were laying there, 
beside that we heard, upon our right, distant firing all day, but not continuous; 
there Avere intervals that we could hear artillery distinctly. 

Q,. On the 27th of August Avhere Avere you? 

A. We were moving on the Warrenton road toAvard Bristoe Station. I should 
thiiikthatwe were encamped on that night some six to eight miles from Bristoe 
Station. We Avent in before sundoAvn ; probably the sun Avas an hour or an hour 
and a half high when we halted there. 

Q,. When did you move from there? 

A. I was corporal of the guard that night, and was ordered to wake the men at 
1 o’clock, which I did, and Ave AA'ere formed and moved out from our camp imme¬ 
diately after 1 o’clock. . 

TESTIMONY OP LEWIS B. CARRICO. 

Lewis B. Carrico, who resides on the battle-ground, called by Gov¬ 
ernment, testified as follows (board’s record, page 982): 

Q. MHiere do you reside ? 

A. Prince William County, Virginia. 


81 


Q. Where did you reside on the 29th of August, 1862 ? 

A. Where I now reside, very near the Manassas Gap Railroad. 

Q. Were you there on that day? 

A. I was. 

Q. Up to what hour in the day did you remain there ? 

A. I was there until very late Friday evening. 

Q,. During that day did you see any confederate forces ? If so, where? 

A. I saw some cavalry scouts during that day, and in the evening there was a 
battery firing some seventy-five or eighty yards back of my house, just west of 
my house, and an officer came there and told me I was in danger, and to take 
my family and go back of the line. 

Q. Where did you go then? 

A. I went up the road about a mile, to a farm owned now by Major Nutt. 

Q,. Towards Gainesville ? 

A. Between there and Gainesville. 

Q. Did you meet any confederate force on that trip? If so, about where? 

A. I saw them a little beyond Hampton Cole’s, a very small number. They 
were sitting down on the side of the railroad, and their battery, that was planted 
at the back of my house; that opened upon the Federal troops directly after I 
passed it; and when I got up there against them, they got up and took shelter 
on the embankment of the railroad. 

Q. Did you at that time see any troops to the south of the railroad? 

A. None at all, except a little picket force that was a little to the south of the 
railroad, just above there; a small picket force. 

Q,. Did any confederate force pass to the east of your house during the day? 
If so, in what direction did they go ? 

A. I saw none pass to the eastward. I saw some shelling from the back of what 
is called the Britt farm, and a disabled Federal wagon at the mouth of a lane 
called Compton’s lane. 

Q. About what time in the day was that? 

A. I could hardly say; 12 or 1 o’clock. 

H: * tti * 

Q. What do you mean by the expression “evening?” 

■ A. I mean something like 3 or 4 o’clock; somewhere thereabouts. 

Q. How do you fix the time? 

A. I.fix the time by having to leave home, and having to go the small distance 
I did go. 

******* 

Q. \’niat room did you stay in ? 

A. I was all over the house; very often upstairs, looking out of the window. 

0,. Which way ? 

A. Toward Dawkin’s Branch. 

Q. What time was the cannon posted there ? 

A. Possibly 4 o’clock. 

Q,. You are positive about that? 

A. I am not positive; but according to the best of my judgment it was proba¬ 
bly as late as 4. 

Q. Was it earlier or later than 4 ? 

A. It was not earlier, I do not think; not earlier than 3 ,1 am very sure. 

***** * * 

Q,. Were there any soldiers of any description about your house, except the 
battery ? 

A. On Friday there was a Federal force in Mr. Lewis’s field, to the east of my 
house. 

0,. Where was Lewis’s field ? 

A. Within three hundred or four hundred yards to the east of my house. 

Q. Were there any about your house? 

A. Yes; there were some of the Federal forces; two men that I had had some 
acquaintance with, who were in my house when this wagon was disabled at the 
end ot Compton’s lane. 

***** * * 

Q. About where is the place where you carried your family? 

A. Immediately at the Manassas Railroad, one mile past Hampton Cole’s. 

Q. You say you did not meet any considerable body of the confederate force 
on your way there “i* 

A. Yes, I do say it; and I saw no considerable body there, as I stated to you 
and General Porter, if he was with you, until I got home next morning, about 
sun-up. They came there to my house and destroyed a great deal. 

B. s. white’s testimony. 

B. S. White, on August 27, 1862, held the position of major in the 
assistant inspector-general’s department of the confederate Maj. Gen. 
J. E. B. Stuart’s staff (board’s record, page 983) : 

Q. That morning, after Major Patrick had those orders to charge, what did 
you do ? 

Lo-6 



82 


A. The enemy were driven away. 

Q. Then what was the next event that transpired ? 

A. We moved off across the country to find out what had become of Long- 
street’s corps. We moved off in this way toward Thoroughfare Gap. 

Q. Did you find General Longstreet’s column or corps advancing? 

A. We did, between Haymarket and Gainesville. 

Q. What did General Stuart then do ? 

A. General Stuart then threw his command on Longstreet’s right and moved 
down with his right flank in the direction of Bristoe to Manassas Junction. 

Q. What did you then observe ? 

A. We took the road leading directly down the Manassas Gap Railroad; there 
is a road running parallel with it. 

Q,. How far down did you go? 

A. General Stuart threw his command on the right of Longstreet, and passed 
down the Manassas Gap Railroad to about that point [west of Hampton Cole’s; 
point marked “ W ”]. 

Q. Then what did you do ? 

A. We discovered a column in our front—discovered a force in our front com¬ 
ing from the direction of Manassas Junction to Bristoe. 

Q,. What sort of a point was that where you discovered this column coming, 
so far as observation is concerned ? 

A. It was a good point for observation; a high position, elevated ground. We 
could see Thoroughfare Gap and Gainesville and all the surrounding country. 

S: ***** 

Q. When you got back to General Stuart, where was he ? 

A. Where I left him, on that hill. 

Q. At that time where was General Longstreet’s command ? 

A. They had come down and were forming here. [Witness indicates a point 
back westerly of Pageland lane.] 

Q. About what time of day was it that this affair occured at Sudley Springs; 
before you and General Stuart started to cross the country toward Thoroughfare 
Gap? 

A. Early in the morning. 

Q. At what would you fix the time ? 

A. I suppose 8 or 9 o’clock in the morning. 

Q,. Did you remain at this point with General Stuart after you got back on this 
hill? 

A. I did. 

Q,. What became of this column of troops that you saw advancing? 

A. I don’t know what became of them; they disappeared from our front. 

Q,. Do you know of any other position being taken up by General Longstreet’s 
command during the day in advance of the position that you have indicated ? If 
so, when and where? You indicated a position back of Pageland lane. 

A. I do not. 

Q. How long were you down in the neighborhood of this hill which you have 
marked with a cross during that day; up to what time ? 

A. We were down there the greater part of the day; we were on the extreme 
right all the time afterward. The cavalry remained on the extreme right until 
the morning of the 30th. 

Q,. What time do you think you met General Longstreet between Haymarket 
and Gainesville ? 

A. It was about 11 o’clock. 

Q. Was General Longstreet at the head of his column ? 

A. He was near the head of the column. 

Q. Were there many troops in front of his command? 

A. Not many. 

Q. Were they advancing ? 

A. They were. 

Q. Rapidly? 

A. They were marching at an ordinary pace. 

Q. State the style of march; how many front ? 

A. They were marching in column. 

Q. How many front ? 

A. Marching in column of regiments, perhaps four abreast. 

Q. Were they in close order ? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Would you swear it was 11 o’clock? 

A. It was about 11 o’clock. 

Q. You are confident that none of Longstreet’s forces had passed through 
Gainesville before 11 o’clock ? 

A. I don’t think they had. 

0,. How did they appear to you; to be on top of a hill, or in a depression, or in 
woods, or by woods, or in an open field ? 

A. The position we occupied was a commanding one, of course. They were in 
a depressed situation from the position Ave occupied. We were on this hill and 
there were here. [Witness indicates.] 


83 


Q. In column, marching along the Manassas Gap Railroad? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q,. Did you see the Manassas Gap Railroad right in their vicinity? 

A. The road they were marching on was parallel to the Manassas Gap Railroad. 

Q. When you came back to that position did you see any Federal troops any¬ 
where ? 

A, Yes. There were Federal troops off here. [Indicating the lines of the regi¬ 
ments.] 

Q. When you came back did you see Longstreet’s command? 

A. I saw Longstreet’s command on my way back from General Stuart; they 
came and formed in here. [Pageland lane.] 

Q. Did you remain in that position all day ? 

A. We were there most all day. Do you mean me individually ? 

Q. Yes. 

A. No. I was back ward and forward several times during the day. I went with 
messages from Stuart to Lee and Longstreet and to“Jackson. 

Q,. Then during that whole day you were in the vicinity of Longstreet’s 
troops and knew of their position ? 

A. Yes; we were on his right. 

Q. What time do you put it that you came back from General Jackson after 
being sent over by General Stuart ? 

A. Half past 2 or 3 o’clock. 

Q,. Do you know of any action that occurred along the Warrenton pike— in¬ 
fantry ? 

A. I heard firing. 

Q,. What time was that? 

A. In the evening. 

Q. About what time ? 

A. General Jackson’s command was engaged all the time. 

Q,. Was Hood’s command engaged at all? 

A. That evening they were. 

Q. What time that evening ? 

A. I suppose about 3 o’clock in the evening they were engaged ; 2? to 3 o’clock. 

Q. Were they engaged vigorously? 

A. Quite a severe fight. 

Q. Describe the action so far as you observed it? 

A. I was not present. I didn’t see it. I heard the firing; it lasted, I suppose, 
half to three-quarters of an hour. 

Q. Was it very vigorous? 

A. It was a very sharp fight. 

Q. Was that the only occasion in Avhich Hood’s command was engaged that 
day to your knowledge? 

A. To my knowledge that is the only one until next morning. 

Q. You say it was 3 o’clock? 

A. Between 2 and 3 o’clock. It may have been after 3. It was after he had got 
in position. 

Q. How long after he got in position ? 

A. He got in position, I sui>pose, about 12orl o’clock. This engagement took 
place about 2?, Or may be 3 or 3^. 

Q. Was it as late as 5? 

A. I can’t recollect. I don’t think it was. 

Q. What is your recollection about the time that that engagement took place 
upon the Warrenton turnpike by Hood’s troops? 

A. I was away on the right. Of course there Avas fighting on the line. I don’t 
know what troops were engaged, but I know that Hood’s troops had a fight there 
that evening. Idon’tknow whetherit was3or35; it may have been 5 o’clock. I 
know they had a sharp fight there, and I heard it. 

* * * * * 

Q. Assuming Hood’s division to be in theplaceyouhaveindicatedby W®, and 
suppose there had been a battery placed on this rise of ground marked C, would 
that have fulfilled what you understood was the position of a battery firing off in 
the direction of “ W^? ” 

A. Yes. Just beyond a small branch there AA'as a hill, a very fine position for 
artillery, and it Avas firing off in the direction of “ W®.” The highest ground of 
that hill is where that battery was placed, or rather a park of artillery; nineteen 
or tAventy of our guns Averein that position. 

Q. Suppose that the column of troops that you saw on that morning, or on the 
noon of Friday, August 29, had been coming up the dirt road from Manassas 
Junction to Gainesville and was in the neighborhood of Dawkin’s Run, would 
that have been the position of the column that you saw according to the map? 

(Objected to as leading.) 

A. The troops Ave saAV approaching came more from the direction of Bristoe 
than from Manassas. 

Q. Therefore, what road indicated on this map best fulfills the direction from 
which you saw those troops coming ? 

(Objected to as leading.) 


84 


A. They were approaching more in the direction fromBristoe than from Ma¬ 
nassas. . J- 

Q. Therefore, what road best of the roads you see on this map shows the direc¬ 
tion from which you saw those troops coming ? [Map explained to the witness.] 
Now, where were the Federal troops? 

A. I remarked a while ago that the column that was advancing advanced more 
from the direction of Bristoe than Manassas. 

Q. Here is Bristoe and there is Manassas. Now, where do you put it, what di¬ 
rection ? Make a line indicating the direction. 

A. They must have come in here or in here. 

Q,. Then you are not positive that you saw them on the Manassas Gap Rail¬ 
road ? . . 

A. I never said I saw the Manassas Gap Railroad. I said I saw them on the 
road running parallel with the Manassas Gap Railroad. They were not march¬ 
ing on the railroad. They were marching on a road that I supposed, from the 
position I occupied, was a line parallel with the Manassas Gap Railroad; they 
may have been on this road [from Gainesville to Stuart’s Hill] and took position 
there [at -[-2.] From that position we saw the columns coming up, but they were 
not on the railroad. 

******* 

Q. Did you see the railroad in conjunction with seeing them, or at the same 
time in connection with seeing them ? 

A. I could not say. I was not looking for railroads. I was looking for troops. 

I don’t recollect now whether I saw the railroad or not. because mv attention 
was directed to more important matters. 

Q. Would you swear that those troops, Bristoe being here and Manassas there — 
that those troops were not on this road to Milford ? 

A. No; they were not in that direction at all. They were off here [witness in¬ 
dicates in the direction of the Manassas and Gainesville dirt road]. 

Q,. Had you been to Bristoe that day ? 

A. No, sir; we had been there the day before. 

Q. How do you know where Bristoe was? 

A. Because I have been there a thousand times since. 

Q. Could you see it from that position ? 

A. I don’t know that you could see the station, but I knew the general direction 
and had been all over that country time and again. 

Q. Did you see any of the shotfired fall near that column? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q,. What did the column do ? 

A. The column seemed to retire. 

Q. Did you see them retire ? 

A. Yes; I saw them give back. 

Q. How did they retire ? 

A. You know how troops retire. They gave back into a piece of woods; and 
just at that time I went off with a message, as I stated before—went off with a 
message to General Jackson from General Stuart. 

By Mr. Maltby : 

Q. You say that the artillery were stationed on the right of" Jackson at the 
highest point on the ridge. Now, did Longstreet’s line bend back from the line 
of Jackson, or did they make an angle more nearly approaching right angles? 

A. I had nothing to do with Longstreet’s position. 

Q. But you saw it? 

A. I passed in his rear several times. 

Q,. Take a pencil and mark Longstreet’s line. 

A. There was an angle formed between Jackson and Longstreet’s line; Jack¬ 
son’s line ran along here. [Witness indicates.] 

Q,. Draw it in pencil. There is the Independent line of the Manassas Gap Rail¬ 
road. [Indicated to the witness.] 

A. Jackson’s artillery was posted on this stony ridge. 

Q,. Draw a line where the nineteen or twenty guns were posted. 

A. I had no connection with Longstreet’s command or Jackson’s. I passed in 
the rear of both lines several times with messages. I did not inspect their lines. 
I just speak from general recollection of their lines. 

Q. Then you do not recollect precisely where any one line was ? 

A. I do; yes. I have indicated there is Jackson’s line; his artillery was posted 
on this range of hills; General Longstreet formed here. [Witness indicates the 
different positions.] Their lines did not join; there was an angle there, an 
opening, and there is where the battery of artillery was. 

Q. Draw Jackson’s line and the cannon of Longstreet. 

A. I have indicated it. [Witness indicates the line of the Independent line of 
the Manassas Gap Railroad.] His line did not go down that far [indicating Sud- 
ley church]; it went to abovit there. ^ 

Q. Where do you run Jackson’s line? ' 

A. Jackson’s line ran about in this direction. [Marked with a pencil.] That 
is about the direction of Jackson’s line. 


85 


(The line indicated by the witness by means of a pencil is followed in ink by 
the recorder.) 

Q. Where were these eighteen or twenty guns of Jackson’s? 

A. That did not have reference to Jackson’s command; Jackson’s artillery was 
posted on this range of hills back of his line of battle. This park of artillery is 
where is and W®. 

Q. You still say that Hood occupied that position, and that his right was where 
+ and + + are? 

A. There is where Hood was; right there. 

REV. JOHN LANDSTREET’S EVIDENCE. 

The evidence of Eev. John Landstreet (hoard’s record, 996). He 
was a minister, called in both armies a chaplain; he was a chaplain in 
the confederate service belonging to this cavalry command. His resi¬ 
dence is in Baltimore County, Maryland: 

Q. What did you do pr see there which has impressed itself upon your atten¬ 
tion? 

A. There was considei-able dust in this direction [witness indicates] indicat¬ 
ing a body of troops; there was considerable down in this direction somewhere. 
At any rate, General Stuart ordered some of the Fifth Cavalry to go out and cut 
brush and drag it along the road. 

Q. (By Mr. Maltby.) Did you hear the order? 

A. Yes; to drag the brush along the Gainesville road, so as to serve as a feint 
and to convey the impression that there was a force coming down the Gaines¬ 
ville road. It was given, I distinctly recollect, to a member of the Fifth Vir¬ 
ginia Cavalry. 

Q. Who was the colonel of that regiment ? 

A. T. L. Rosser. We frequently after that conversed about it. 

Q. What was done after that while you were in the neighborhood of Hamp¬ 
ton Cole’s? 

A. There was some firing from this position [+-], in the direction of this ap¬ 
proaching force; and from my recollection of it the force was a considerable 
distance down. If three inches indicate a mile here, and if it was a life and death 
case. I would say that it was inside of a mile that they were off. 

0,. You should say it was a distance of about a mile ? 

A. I should say it was inside of a mile. It was not beyond a mile, certainly. 
[Witness indicates from Hampton Cole’s.] There were several shots fired from 
this point in the direction down there. 

Q. In what direction? 

A. That depends entirely upon where the man was standing at the time, and 
what he was looking at. I did not charge my mind much with this Manassas Gap 
Railroad, though I knew it very well. But I would not say whether it was here 
or there [whether right or left]. It was pretty much in line with this railroad 
[Manassas Gap Railroad]. 

Q. What became of this column of troops upon those shots being fired ? 

A. I did not see them. 

Q. They disappeared from your sight ? 

A. Yes, sir. 

0,. Did they remain in the position they were in when they were fired upon ? 

A. No, sir. When my attention was directed to them they were where I could 
see the column, or a considerable portion of it; and they were marching in good 
order, close column. 

Q. Do you recollect how many shots were fired at them ? 

A. I do not; but I am positive I didn’t hear half a dozen; I know I did not. 

Q. How long did you remain in that position in the neighborhood of Hampton 
Cole’s that day? 

A. I was sent off after that to hunt up the First Virginia Cavalry, not very far 
from there at that time; and I paid very little attention, indeed, from that time. 
When Longstreet came and formed there. General Jackson being in position, I 
came out from the command, and I was not in any of the fight at all except in 
the cavalry movements—skirmishing. 

Q. Where did General Longstreet form his command ? 

A. It seems to me I struck a portion of Hood’s command on General Long- 
street’s left before I got anywhere in the direction of Longstreet’s right. They 
seemed to come in a good ways in the direction of General Longstreet’s left, if 
they were not immediately on his flank. 

Q. About where would you put them, north of the pike, across the pike, or 
south of the pike ? 

A. Which? 

Q. Hood’s division of that command ? 

A. From my recollection, there was a portion of Longstreet’s command that 
crossed the Manassas Gap Railroad [the witness marks a point with'a pen]; 
crossed it, am sure, some distance, but how far I don’t know. I do not think it 
was far. It extended, I think, up in this way. Hood’s was in front of it; part 


86 


of it in the body of the woods. My impression is that Hood came in a little in 
advance of Longstreet’s left. I am certain that I came to Hood before I came to 
Longstreet’s force in position. [Marked “ Longstreet ” and “ Hood.”] 

Q. What time of day was that that they were all in position ? * * * 

A. It is my recollection that it was somewhere between 2 and 3 o’clock. 

Q,. Do you know whether or not either Hood or the remainder of Longstreet’s 
command were in advance to the east of Pageland lane at any time that day ? 

A. I do not. 

Q,. Was your position such that you could see the location of Hood and Long- 
street during the afternoon ? 

A. Oh, yes; I could go where I pleased. 

Q,. How long did this action of that day continue ? 

A. The firing, to my recollection, continued up to about dark. It was near 
dusk. At times it was heavier than at others ; and at times severer than I ever 
heard it in any engagement. 

Q. What were your opportunities during that day of knowing the fact, pro¬ 
vided General Hood had advanced east of Pageland lane? [Points of compass 
upon the map explained to the witness.] 

A. My answer is, that if I had a desire to know it, I eould have known it very 
easily; but I didn’t think about it at all. It was not in my mind. I was well 
acquainted with Hood and his command, and that made the impression upon me 
in coming to this point. I came from the direction where Jackson’s command 
was, and passed this heavy battery at the time, though I think there were a few 
more guns there than I have heard stated to-day. 

Q. In which direction, as you stood at Hampton Cole’s facing the enemy, was 
Longstreet’s command from you, with reference to your own person—to the left, 
right, front, or rear? 

A. Looking down in the direction from which the enemy were coming, a por¬ 
tion of it was in my rear and a portion of it was not. 

Q. At the time you arrived there at Hampton Cole’s ? 

A. No, sir. They did not get in this position at the time I arrived at Hampton 
Cole’s. I arrived at Hampton Cole’s about 10 or 11 in the morning. 

Q. Where were the guns stationed in reference to Hampton Cole’s? 

A. The guns were pointed down a little to the left of the railroad. 

Q. How near were you to the guns? 

A. Right up by them. 

Q. How much of that column did you see ? 

A. I eould not say how many regiments there were. The column indicated 
that it was the head of a eonsiderable body of men. 

Q. What was that indication ? 

A. They were marching in close column. 

Q. Would not a regiment march in close column? 

A. Might not in as close column as that, and in good order. My judgment in 
the matter was that it was the advance of a large army. 

Q. Did you see a quarter of a mile of that eolumn ? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. An eighth of a mile ? 

A. That is somewhere near it. 

Q. Was it marching upon a plain? 

A. I can not tell you that. It did not appear to me as if they were coming up 
a hill, nor as if they were coming down a hill. 

Q. As if they were marching upon a plain ? 

A. It looked pretty much as if they were on a level. 

Q. Can you state whether any bushes were to their right or left, or trees? 

A. No; I could not. My impression is that the country was pretty well open 
left and right of where I first saw them. 

0,. Did you see them in fiank at all? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. I don’t know whether it is a military expression or not. 

A. Do you mean did I see the rear of the enemy? 

Q. No, sir; I mean the side of the column as it advanced. 

A. No, sir; it was the shortest space of time before the firing commenced here 
at Hampton Cole’s before I saw them no more. 

Q,. Was this column to your right or left? 

A. From the position I was in, it was almost directly in my front. I think if I 
had advanced in a straight line I would have come up face to face with them. I 
was a little to the right of Hampton Cole’s and looking right straight down. 

Q. Did you see troops in the neighborhood of the Leachman house? 

A. I knew there were troops there, but how I knew it I am not now prepared 
to say. 

Q. How did they appear ? Did they march out of sight in the rear, or did they 
retire in the bushes ? 

A. If you will let me use an illustration: It was a very common thing for a col¬ 
umn of cavalry to advance, and one shot into a column of «avalry would make 
them disappear in the woods, and that was the end of it. I never saw a column 
that got out of sight quicker than this column did. 


87 


Q. How long did you remain at Hampton Cole’s ? 

A. I suppose I staid there until—well, it was just after the brush expedition; 
shortly after that; and I went in the direction of Gainesville from there. I don’t 
know but what I went right across to Gainesville; I think I did. 

Q. How did you go? 

A. I struck out on this Gainesville road that I had traveled hundreds of times 
towards Gainesville; pretty much along the line of the railroad. 

Q. How long did you say that it was that you were at Hampton Cole’s? 

A. I said I was there until after 12 o’clock. 

Q,. Were you there about an hour in all? 

A. I was there more than an hour; I was there fully an hour and a half. 

Q,. You passed along the Manassas Gap Railroad? 

A. I passed along the Gainesville turnpike. 

Q,. What did you see on your route in the shape of troops? 

A. I met some of, I think, Longstreet’s forces on the Warrenton pike. 

0,. Did you see any of Longstreet’s troops? 

A. I have no recollection of seeing them. 

Q. Were there any troops marching on that turnpike? 

A. There may have been. I did not pay any attention to it. 

Q. How long did you stay away in the direction of Gainesville ? 

A. I staid away until about 3 or half past 3 o’clock, I think. 

Q. Then what did you do ? 

A. Then I returned to the First Regiment of Virginia Cavalry. 

Q. Where was that ? 

A. If my recollection serves, it was between Hampton Cole’s and Sudley. 

Q. Was that the detachment that had been sent off to drag brush there that day ? 
A. No, sir. That was the Fifth Virginia Cavalry, commanded by Colonel 
Rosser. 

Q. When did you first see the plaee where Longstreet’s line was formed after 
you went off towards Gainesville ? 

A. I saw it for the first time a little after 3 o’clock. 

Q. Was it then formed? 

A. Yes; it was then formed in good order. 

Q,. All along the whole line ? 

A. Well, I did not ride along the whole line. 

Q,. Where were you? 

A. I could not tell you how it was along the whole line. I rode in along here and 
I passed on out here. I passed around on Longstreet’s left, and I found Hood’s 
division in front of Longstreet, and rather extending beyond his left. [Witness 
indicates near Pageland lane.] 

Q. Then what did you strike ? 

A. I didn’t know what the name of the road was. I made for Sudley neigh¬ 
borhood, and there I met a portion of the First Virginia. 

Q. On Hood’s left or Longstreet’s left did you find artillery? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did Hood’s line extend quite up to the artillery? 

A. No, sir; it did not. There was a gap. 

Q,. How much of a gap? 

A. I don’t recollect how much it was, but it was a considerable gap. 

Q. Half a mile ? 

A. I don’t know whether it was that much, but it was a considerable gap, a con¬ 
siderable elevation. 

Q. Do you know where thatartillery was in reference to the Browner or Doug¬ 
las house ? 

A. No, sir; I know nothing about houses there. 

Q. Were the batteries in advance of Hood’s line? 

A. Well, rather. 

Q. Much? 

A. No, sir; they were rather a little in advance of his left. 

Q,. Was the distance between Hood’s left and the right of the artillery as great 

as the gap ? , . , x .«• 

A. According to my recollection, the battery was pretty nearly in the center of 
the gap. . . 

Q,. Did the line of the battery run in the same direction that Hood’s line ran, or 
did Hood’s line form an angle with the battery? 

A. It was at an angle. 

Q. Was the right of the battery much in advance of Hood’s left? 

A. No, sir; it was not much in advance, but still it was in advance. 

Q. Was it a half mile in advance? 

A. Oh, no. 

Q. Was it a quarter of a mile ? 

A. No, sir; I don’t think it was that. 

Q. Or an eighth ? . . , t i j 

A. I don’t think it was that. It was a very short distance in advance. I would 
not sav positively that it was in advance at all. 

# * * * * * * 


88 


Q,. About what time of day did you first see Longstreet’s troops in position 
after that? 

A. I saw them in position, I think, somewhere about 3 o’clock, or a little after 
3, or a little before 3. 

GENERAL ROBERT C. SCHENCK’S TESTIMONY. 

Robert C. Scbenck, called by the recorder, and examined in the city 
of Baltimore, October 22,1878 (present, the recorder, and Mr. Maltby, 
of counsel for the petitioner), being duly sworn, testified as follows: 

Q,. Where do you.reside? 

A. Dayton, Ohio; temporarily residing in Washington, D. C. 

0,. What rank and command did you hold in the military service of the United 
States on the 29th August, 1862 ? 

A. Brigadier-general of volunteers, commanding the first division, Sigel’s 
corps. 

Q,. Finally you left the service with what rank? 

A. Major-general. I was promoted to take effect August 30, 1862. 

Q. In moving up to this position, did you have, in the morning of the 29th 
August, any enemy in front of you? 

A. None that we felt. Throwing forward skirmishers and supposing the enemy 
was present somewhere, pretty early in the day a force of the enemy was de¬ 
veloped upon this ridge where there were a number of batteries placed to our 
right; that would be to the north of the turnpike road. 

Q. Do you recollect passing that lane, Lewis lane No. 1? 

A. I have a very indistinct impression of it. I have a remembrance floating 
in my mind having crossed some road which was not the turnpike, but I don’t 
recall it distinctly. 

Q. At what time of the day did you reach your farthest point in advance? 

A. I think it must have been somewhere about the middle of the day; perhaps 
a little earlier than the middle of the day. 

Q,. Did you see General Reynolds’s divisions during that day? 

A. No; but I understood he was off on my left. 

Q,. Did you see General Reynolds himself during the morning or afternoon ? 

A. No; I think not. I don’t recollect. 

Q,. How far did you get beyond the Gibbon wood, in which the wounded of 
the night before were ? 

A. I don’t know that we got beyond the Gibbon wood. My remembrance is 
that the farthest point we reached was somewhere about the west edge of the 
Gibbon wood—that is, the wood in which Gibbon’s troops were engaged the 
night before. We found there his wounded and the evidence of the battle that 
had taken place. 

Q. Was anything done with these wounded that you found there ? 

A. I ordered all the men in that and the piece of woods this side of that, where 
there were, I think, a few scattered, to be sent to the rear and taken care of. I 
don’t know that that is the Gibbon wood; I mean the wood farthest in advanee 
that I reached was the wood in which the engagement took place. My impres¬ 
sion is we did not at any period go farther in that direction than to perhaps the 
west edge of that wood. 

Q. Look at the map. Which piece of timber is it that you consider to be the 
Gibbon wood ? 

A. This I suppose to be the wood. [In which the word “ Warrenton ” ends; 
marked “ S ” on the Landstreet map.] That, I suppose, is intended for the wood 
in which Gibbon’s engagement took place. 

Q. How long did your division remain in that woods? 

A. We must have been in that wood, altogether, two or three hours. 

Q,. Did you see any battery of the enemy while you were in that position ? If 
so, where was it? 

A. There was a battery off to our right somewhere which I recollect all the more 
distinctly because it seemed to me to be detached from the general line of the en¬ 
emy, and I conceived the purpose of attempting to capture it, and sent one of my 
staff over to reconnoiter with a view to see how it might be approached. But 
about that time Milroy, who was engaged with the enemy oft' to my right, com¬ 
municated with me, or General Sigel for him—I think the message eame from 
Milroy himself—begging assistance, and I detached Stahel’s brigade to support 
Milroy northeast of the pike, and then gave up the idea of attempting to eapture 
that battery. 

Q. That battery was in the neighborhood of where? 

A. It was on a hill on my right; to the right of the wood where Gibbon’s fight 
had taken place. It was upon elevated ground, and seemed to be the spur of a 
hill. I thought we might by a sudden and decisive movement upon it capture it. 

Q. Whilfi you were up in this position McLean’s brigade, I understand, was on 
the left. What was the position of Reynolds’s division of Pennsylvania Reserves 
as reported to you at that time in reference to your own position ? 

A. I did not see them, but they were reported to me as being upon our left, and 


89 


1 may add that it was reported to me that they had stationed a battery somewhere 
in advance of Gibbon’s wood, I think Cooper’s battery. 

Q. In which direction was that battery operating ? 

A, I did not see the battery. 

Q,. At what time did you quit with your division this Gibbon wood ? 

A. I should think, to the best of my recollection, somewhere between 1 and 3 
o’clock. I don’t think I can be more positive than that. My recollection is that 
it was some time after noon. 

Q. To what point did you go then with your division ? 

A. In consequence of reports made to me in reference to the movements of 
General Reynolds I thought it best for me to fall back, and I came into a strip 
of woods which I supposed to be these [south of the syllable “ ville ” in “ Gaines¬ 
ville ”]. I formed in line of battle near the west edge of that woods. There we 
lay most of the afternoon. 

Q. Up to what time ? 

A. I can scarcely tell you. I should think at least until the middle of the after¬ 
noon, perhaps later. I recollect withdrawing fi’om that point from wood to wood 
as we had advanced. We found it quite late in the afternoon, or quite sunset, 
by the time I reached my original position. The whole distance, I should think, 
was about two miles from the point where we started in the morning to the fur¬ 
thest point to which we advanced. 

Q. While you were in the Gibbon wood, what enemy, if any, did you see in 
your immediate front? 

A. I can not say that I saw any enemy in our immediate front. There were 
skirmishers in that direetion, and as my skirmishers were thrown forward we 
would have an occasional shot, but there seemed to me at that time to be no 
enemy in my front, in my immediate front. The first intimation that I had that 
the enemy in considerable force were upon our left was through Colonel Mc¬ 
Lean, the commander of my second brigade, who told me that a messenger, or 
•staflF oflicer, or orderly, or some one from Reynolds, apparently with authority, 
had come to him, as he was in command of a brigade, and communicated the 
fact that the enemy were upon our left, and I think was coupled with the in¬ 
formation that Reynolds intended to fall back. I tried to communicate with 
Reynolds again, but did not succeed, but I thought there was no occasion for im¬ 
mediately falling back; but not finding any response from General Reynolds, I 
coneluded to withdraw slowly to at least a short distance and then come across 
s,n open space into the next wood (into a little strip marked S-), where I rested 
the troops in line. 

Q. While you were holding position in that little strip of woods do you know 
whether or not the enemy obtained the possession of the Gibbon wood ? 

A. I am satisfied that they were not there in any force; they had their skir¬ 
mishers thrown forward as I had men toward the Gibbon wood, and there were 
occasional shots fired with or without good eause for them, but there was no 
movement in force, nor was there indicated to me any presence of an enemy 
in force. 

Q. Can you fix with any degree of relative certainty the time in the afternoon 
when you quit the little fringe of woods marked “S^”; whether it was 2, or 3, 
or 4, or 5, or 6 o’clock ? 

A. The days in August are pretty long. I should say it was at least the mid¬ 
dle of the afternoon, or probably later. I reached my conclusion from measur¬ 
ing it by the movement forward and the gradual withdrawal of the troops. I 
should think it was after the middle of the afternoon. 

TESTIMONY OF GENERAL S. D. STURGIS. 

General S. D. Sturgis testifies that he moved on the Gainesville road 
August 29, 1862, with his command. (Board record, page 711.) 

Q,. You say you went a mile and a half beyond Bethlehem Church toward 
Gainesville? 

A. That is my recollection. 

Q. What did you then do ? 

A. I reported to General Porter. I rode in advance of my brigade. I found 
troops oecupying the road, and I got up as near as I eould get and then halted my 
oommand, and then rode forward to tell General Porter tliat they were thei’e. 
He said, “ For the present let them lie there.” 

Q. What did you do then individually? 

A. Well, I simply looked about to see what I could see. I was a stranger to 
the lay of the land, and the troops, and all that; so without getting off my horse 
I rode about from place to place watching the skirmishers, and among other 
things I took a glass and looked in the direetion of the woods; about a mile be¬ 
yond which seemed to be the object of attention—beyond the skirmishers; 
there I saw a glint of light on a gun; and I remarked to General Porter that 1 
thought they were probably putting a battery in position at that place, for I 
thought I had seen a gun. 

Q. State what the conversation was. 

A. I reported this fact of what I had seen to the general; he thought I was mis- 


90 


taken about it, but I was not mistaken, because it opened in a moment at least 
a few shots were fired from that place—four, as I recollect. 

Q. What force of the enemy did you see in that direction at that time? 

A. I didn’t see any of the enemy at all. 

Q. Then what did you do ? 

A. Then when they had fired, as near as I can recollect, about four shots from 
this piece. General Porter beckoned to me; I rode up to him and he directed me 
to take my command to Manassas Junction, and take up a defensive position, 
inasmuch as the firing seemed to be receding on our right. 

Q. What firing do you mean ? . 

A. I mean the cannonading that had been going on for some time on our right, 
probably in the direction of Groveton. 

Q,. How long had you heard that cannonading? 

A. I don’t recollect exactly where I heard it first. My impression has been 
that I heard it all along the march from Manasses to General Porter’s position. 
I do not recollect distinctly that I did hear it, but I know I heard it all the time 
after I arrived there until I left. 

Q. What time of day was this that you received the order to move back with 
your command to Manassas Junction ? 

A. I have no way of fixing the time of day. I have carried in my mind the 
impression that it was more about the middle of the day—about 1 o’clock. 

Q. What did you do when you received that order ? 

A. I sent word to General Piatt to move back to Manassas Junction, and that 
I would join him there. 

Q. Do you know whether your order was obeyed? 

A. Yes; it was obeyed. 

EVIDENCE OP MARK J. BUNNELL. 

Mark J. Bunnell, on page 678 of the board record, says: 

I called to an orderly and stated to him what I wanted. He called Colonel 
Marshall, and they came down within a few paces of where I was, and Colonel 
Marshall then received his orders to deploy his regiment as skirmishers in front. 

Q. Did you hear the order ? 

A. I stood right there so I could hear. 

Q. What were the orders that General Porter gave Colonel Marshall. 

A. I could not hear all the conversation, but to deploy his regiment as skir¬ 
mishers, as we were about ready to move out; not to bring on a general engage¬ 
ment, but the idea was that we had to do duty only as skirmishers. 

CAPT. A. P. martin’s TESTIMONY. 

Capt. A. P. Martin, commanding the artillery of MorelPs division on 
the 29th of August, swears as follows : 

Examination by the Court : 

Q. Do you know of any order having been given by General Porter to make 
an attack upon the enemy during that day ? 

A. I did not. I received orders from him to put the batteries in position. 

Q. How long did the artillery firing continue ? 

A. The firing of the first section of the enemy’s battery that opened from the 
woods in front continued perhaps twenty minutes; they fired very slowly. An 
hour later, perhaps, there Avas a battery opened further to our right, and they 
were engaged by Hazlett’s battery of Morell’s division. 

Q,. At Avhat distance from each other were these batteries that were engaged ? 

A. I should think not over a thousand yards; it might have been a thousand 
or one thousand two hundred yards. 

Q,. Do you know whether any effect was produced on either side by this artil¬ 
lery fire ? 

A. They were in the woods, and we could not see, except that the first battery 
that was opened was silenced. I should think, in about twenty minutes or half an 
hour. 

Q. Was there any loss on our side? 

A. Yes, sir; one man was killed by the first shot that the enemy fired. I saw 
him fall. 

Q. On which side of the Manassas Gap Railroad, north or south, were the ene¬ 
my’s batteries that you were then engaging? 

A. They were on the side toward us—the south side, I suppose. 

The examination of this witness was here closed. 

J. J. COPPINGER SWORN. 

J. J. Coppinger, called by the recorder, being duly sworn, testifies as 
follows: 

Direct examination: 

Q. State your rank and station. 

A. Captain Twenty-third Infantry, and brevet colonel. 


91 


Q. What rank did you hold in the month of August, 1862 ? 

A. Captain Fourteenth Infantry. 

Q. In whose brigade, division, and corps were you during that month? 

A. The first regular brigade, Sykes’s division. Porter’s corps. 

Q. Do you recollect being at Fredericksburg in that month? 

A. Yes; at or near Fredericksburg. 

Q. Where did you move to from there? 

A. We moved in a general direction toward Bealeton on the line of the rail¬ 
road from Rappahannock Junction to Alexandria. 

Q. What sort of a march did you make in going up there to that point? 

A. The first afternoon we made a long march; we made good time. I could 
not give the distance in miles. The next morning we marched early a few miles, 
and to the best of my recollection countermarched, and were placed in line of 
battle at a short distance from the camp which we had left. After that our 
marches seemed rather spasmodic until we got to the railroad. 

Q. Near what point, or at what point? 

A. Until we got near Bealeton, on the railroad. I do not recollect whether we 
actually struck the track at Bealeton or Warrenton Junction, but we were near 
the railroad at Bealeton, and on it to Warrenton Junction. 

Q,. Were you in Warreton Junction on the 27th of August, 1862 ? 

A. On or about, but I can not swear to the date. 

Q,. Then you left there to go to what point? 

A. March along the line of the railroad toward Manassas Junction. 

Q,. Do you recollect at what time of day you left Warrenton Junction to go in 
the direction of Manassas Junction ? 

A. I cannot. My watch, I think, was broken, and I was very badly wounded 
a few hours after; so I do not recollect. I cannot give you the hours. 

Q. You came to a halt for the night at what place? 

A. Near Bristoe Station. 

Q. At what time of day did you arrive at Bristoe Station ? 

A. Early in the day; I cannot give the hour. The reason I say early in the day 
is that I recollect passing a good part of theeveningwithSmead,of the artillery, 
who was killed a few hours after. 

Q. The next morning you marched for what place? 

A. Manassas Junction. 

Q. From there, what direction did you take? 

A. Toward Gainesville. 

Q. Do you recolleeta place named Bethlehem church? 

A. 1 have an indistinct recollection of a small church on the left of the road. 

Q,. You went out on that road; do you recall any incident connected with that 
march out on the road toward Gainesville? 

A. Do you mean the passage of other troops? ^ 

Q. You went out on that road; when did you receive a command to halt? 

A. When, I think, about two shots close to the edge of a wood^two shots, I 
think, were fired; just about that moment our command halted. 

Q. From what direction? 

A. Front and right. 

Q. Then what did your regiment and brigade do? 

A. Halted, and were ordered to face about. 

Q. Then what? 

A. We were marched to the rear in column of fours. 

Q. To what point ? 

A. I can not give you the point; but the next point I recollect is being on a side 
road which leads off toward the battlefield of Bull Run. Perhaps it would be 
better if I were to say that my memory of that battlefield—I was left on the field 
between the lines, senseless, until the next day, and my memory of both those 
days is somewhat spasmodic. Some things I see as clearly as anybody I see in 
this room; and there are intervals of which I have a very poor recollection. 
Now, between the time of our being marched ft-ere and our being halted, I don’t 
recollect. [Witness indicates points on the map.] 

Q. As to this point of fact—these shots being fired, and you countermarched to 
the rear—how soon after the shots were fired was the order for you to move to the 
rear? 

A. I think almost immediately. 

Q. Do you recall with any certainty how long or how far you marched to the 
rear? 

A. We marched quite a distance to the rear, I think from one to two miles, if 
not more ; but I am almost eertain that the command was “ Halt; about face,” 
and within three minutes I think, and perhaps a shorter time, we were in motion 
to the rear. . .« 

Q. During that day did you move to the front again; if so, when? 

A. We were moved on a cross-road, which led us the next day to the battlefield, 
[Witness indieates in the direction of the Sudley Springs road.] 

Q,. When did you say you made that move at the cross-road ? 

A. I can not give the time. 

Q. Some time that day? 


92 


A, In the afternoon. 

Q. Did you encamp there, or did you go back again ? 

A. We passed the night there; stacked arms, and I think lay down by our 
arms. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Bullitt : 

Q. You were then a captain? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Of what company ? 

A. Company A, second battalion. Fourteenth Infantry. 

Q. Who was the commander of your regiment? 

A. General Stone was the colonel. Our battalion was that day commanded by 
Captain McKibbon, who was wounded the next day. The senior officer on the 
ground was Captain O’Connor, who was also wounded the next day. 

Q. What brigade ? 

A. The first regular brigade, temporarily commanded by Colonel Buchanan. 

The examination of this witness was here closed. 

TESTIMONY OF CAPTAIN GECKE. 

Captain Gecke testified as follows (board’s record, page 668): 

Right before me was a piece of wood and an open corn-field between me and 
the woods. I remained and deployed my skirmish line outside of the ditch 
there. At the same time when I came there I saw skirmishers, dismounted 
cavalry, marching before me in that corn-field. My men fired at them and they 
fired over to us. Then they went back into the woods and I gave the command 
to cease firing. Then the adjutant of the regiment came up between 4 and 5 
o’clock with an order to the commanding officer of the skirmish line. I stepped 
up, and he said I should find out immediately what was going on in the corner 
of the woods; so I took a sergeant and a file of men and went up there; and 
the sergeant went ahead and looked in that direction, and then we came down 
and reported to the adjutant that the enemy has been marching out of the 
woods, and that they were moving cannon and ammunition-wagons to form 
their proper companies, and turning to the left. A little while after this I heard 
a few shots fired over in that direction. 

^ ^ 

Q,. When you went out with the skirmishers and deployed your men, what 
orders did you have ? 

A, I had no special order except to see what was going on. I saw no line 
formed on the left; no line formed on the right. 

Q. When did you first observe the enemy coming down on your front ? • 

A# That was about 4 o’clock. 

0,. Up to that time what indications were there of an enemy in your front? 

A. I should say I saw a few of a skirmish line moving through the corn-field 
into the other side of the wood. 

0,. During that day did you see any artillery firing? 

A. I heard artillery firing. 

0,. In what direction did you hear it ? 

A. The fire of artillery that forenoon I heard on the front of us; in the after¬ 
noon on our right. 

Q. What was the character of that artillery firing that you heard ? 

A. Itcommenced at 5 o’clock in the morning; then it was in the far distance. 
Then about 11 or 12 o’clock we heard it better; we heard heavier firing. Then 
between 1 and 2 o’clock there was no firing whatever. Then from about 3 o’clock 
and afterward there was heavy artillery firing and musket firing up to most 9 
o’clock at night and yelling by the enemy and cheering by the Union men. We 
heard that off on our right. 

Q,. Did you at any time during that afternoon undertake to feel the enemy 
and find out what their strength was? 

A. No; I only carried out the order I had. 

Q. About what time in the day would you say you moved across Dawkin’s 
Branch to go forward with your skirmishers ? 

A. About 3 o’clock. 

Q. Did you know the position of the enemy after you got up on the skirmish 
line? 

A. No I didn’t ^e no other part of the troops except this dismounted cavalry. 

Q. This yelling and cheering that you heard by the enemy and the Union 
troops—was that before or after you moved your skirmish line across Dawkin’s 
Branch ? 

A. Afterward. 

Q,. How long after ? 

A. That commenced about 5 o’clock or half past 5, and kept on until dark¬ 
ness. 

Q. The yelling and cheering that you heard was between 5 o’clock and sun¬ 
down ? 


93 


The confederate General R. E. Lee’s official report of that action says 
that the battle continued until 9 o’clock at night (board’s record, page 
520). 

A. Up to 9 o’clock at night. 

Q,. Did you make any report of that to anybody ? 

A. No. 

Q,. Do you mean to say that you did not send any message to Colonel Marshall 
at all that day? 

A. No; except this one, because I was not so far off from them. They could hear 
all these things going on themselves. 

Q. Then you could hear, and he could hear? 

A. He could hear the firing. It took me about ten minutes, more or less, to get 
there from my position back. 

SERGT. FERDINAND MOHLE’S TESTIMONY. . 

Sergt. Ferdinand Mohle, Thirteenth New York Volunteers (board’s 
record, page 676), a Government witness, has stated as follows as to his 
position to the front: 

A. I think we staid as skirmishers up toward night, and then we were with¬ 
drawn on to a hill. It is kind of rolling country here. I think it was hollow 
along that way and then it raised again. 

Q,. 'What did you see while you were on the skirmish line so far as the enemy 
was concerned ? 

A. Saw a couple of rebel pickets in front of us. 

Q. Infantry or cavalry ? 

A. I could not say exactly; I guess it was dismounted cavalry. 

Q,. What other indications of an enemy did you see during the day; what 
enemy did you see in front of you ? 

A. I saw no enemy where I stood. I have just said it was a kind of hollow 
place where we went through and we could not see many of the enemy except 
a line of pickets; they were not very active. We exchanged a couple of shots, 
and I recollect a couple of cannon shots flew right over our line and came, I 
guess, from our rear—our own men—two or three shots. 

Q. Was there any cannonading going on then? 

A. There was. 

Q. Where was that ? 

A. That was to our right. 

Q,. What was the character of it ? 

A. It was heavier toward evening than the time we went up there. We heard 
the noise more in the evening—the noise of artillery and cheering—than when 
we first came up there. But still firing was going on. 

Q. When did the enemy come down in force on your front that day where you 
were? 

A. What do you mean by the enemy; the line of pickets? 

Q,. Yes, or heavy force; did you see any heavier force in front of you? 

A. I could not see any heavy force; I could hear more. I could hear moving. 
I did not know whether it was artillery or cavalry, but I heard some words, some 
commands. 

Q. How late in the'day was that? 

A. It was in the evening; toward night, I guess. 

Q,. When you went out there on that line did you hear those commands and 
movements ? 

A. I can not remember; I did not hear any command at that time; but there was 
a couple of shots exchanged between the pickets; and finally, I think, the rebel 
pickets went back a little, and word was brought to cease firing. 

Q. Could you hear any 'musketry firing in the afternoon where you were, arid 
infantry firing? 

A. Yes, I could hear that. 

Q. How long in the afternoon did you hear infantry firing. 

A. I can not tell exactly when it commenced, but I could hear cannon firing 
when we were marching up there. 

Q. After you got up there was there any cannon firing? 

A. There was cannon firing at intervals; it ceased sometimes, and toward 
night it went on pretty heavy. 

Q. Any musketry firing in the afternoon to your front or right? 

A. I think there was musketry firing, but we could not hear it so plain as in the 
evening. 

Q. About what time did you hear this cheering which you speak of ? 

A. About sunset. 

CAPT. JOHN S. hatch’s TESTIMONY. 

Capt. John S. Hatch, First Michigan Volunteers, Martindale’s bri¬ 
gade, Morell’s division, a witness for the Government, testifies as fol- 


94 


lows (board record, page 600) as to what transpired at the front, near 
Dawkin’s Branch, on the 29th August: 

Q. Tell what you saw when you got there at that point. 

A. AVhen we turned off into the woods we were preparing to go into action, as 
I supposed. I think the pieces were loaded. Caps were let off the guns, and 
cartridges examined and cartridge-boxes, and some such things as that. We re¬ 
mained in the woods a little time, and then we moved off to an eminence where 
we could look off into the depression or ravine; and then the Thirteenth New 
York was thrown out as skirmishers. 

Q. How long had this been after you had arrived at that point before the Thir¬ 
teenth was thrown in ? 

A. It is my impression that we were loading pieces and preparing, as we sup¬ 
posed, to go into action. I recollect we were talking of it together; that it was 
about noon. I do not recollect looking at a watch. It was about 12 o’clock, I 
should say; not far from that any way. 

Q. That the Thirteenth were thrown out ? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q,. You remained there during the day ? 

A. Remained there all that day. 

Q,. After the Thirteenth were thrown out what did you see? 

A. We came out of these wood, I guess, almost entirely, so that we could see 
the Thirteenth New York maneuver, and see the ravine and woods on beyond. 
I think our arms were stacked—our brigade. We lay there and saw the Thir¬ 
teenth New York moving; they kept moving on until they met with somelittle 
check on the other side; there were some shots fired; then, some time after that, 
a solid shot came over. General Porter was there with his staff. I do not know 
whether there were any other generals there or not. There was a little scatter¬ 
ing there and a little commotion all around, until pretty soon another one came 
over, and there was apiece runout ofthe woods where the Thirteenth NewYork 
had met with some opposition from the infantry; there was another shot fired 
soon after that, and we supposed the work was commencing. There were three 
shots, I think, or four shots fired. We supposed that they were firing at General 
Porter and his staff, because they were mounted and conspicuous. 

Q. Then what was done? 

A. There was nothing done by us during that afternoon. We were lyingthere 
at ease until early in the evening, when our brigade, a portion of it—my regiment 
at least^—was thrown out. you might say, as skirmishers. We were thrown out 
to guard against a surprise that night—thrown out to the right of where the New 
York Thirteenth went down. 

Q,. How long did you remain there ? 

A. Two hours; about that. 

Q. AVhat indications, if any, did you observe of the presence of the enemy 
during the day ? 

A. Sve saw fighting going on on our right and front. 

Q. What kind of a contest was it ? 

A. There was heavy artillery firing. 

Q. How long did that continue ? 

A. From the time we came out on to that eminence, out of the woods; there 
was firing all the afternoon, but not continuous; there was at times heavy firing, 
rapid firing. 

Q. From the character of the firing what were the indications? 

A. It was heavy—artillery fire. 

Q. I understand you to say that you could see the action going on? 

A. I could not see the troops that I recollect. I do not think I could, but the 
smoke and the bursting of the shells could be seen, and we could hear the sound 
of the artillery and see the lines of smoke; towards evening we heard mus¬ 
ketry firing. 

Q. How long was it after the Thirteenth New York went out before you saw 
that gun run out that you speak of? 

A. They had time to get down three-quarters of a mile or more—perhaps half 
an hour. 

Q. During the day what enemy did you see in your front besides what you 
have mentioned at that time? 

A. Saw a line of dust on the left making toward Jackson, who we under¬ 
stood was opposing our forces. 

Q. At the time? 

A. At the time. 

Q. Did you see any enemy directly in your front? 

A. These woods Avere there; nothing more than artillery. There were infan¬ 
try opposed to the Thirteenth New York. 

Q,. How long did they remain there, artillery and infantry? 

A. I do not know that; they did not remain all the afternoon. 

0,. Had no more artillery firing from them ? 

A. The artillery; three or four shots was all that bothered us. 


95 


Cross-examination by Mr, Bullitt : 

Q,. What time was it, in the afternoon or toward evening, that you heard that 
musketry firing? 

A. The day was well advanced. 

Q. Five or 6 o’clock in the evening? 

A. I should judge so; before sundown some time. 

Q. What you had heard, prior to that time, was all artillery firing? 

A. I do not recollect any musketry firing until toward sundown; perhaps the 
sun was an hour or two high. 

Q. What time was it that you were sent on that picket-line? 

A. The Thirteenth New York was sent out, and I Avas in the same brigade with 
them. As I say, we were preparing for action in the woods about 12 o’clock,! 
should think. 

MAJ. GEN. ROBERT C. BUCHANAN’S TESTIMONY. 

The late Bvt. Maj. Gen. Robert C. Buchanan, United States Army, re¬ 
tired, called by petitioner (board record, page 215), testifies as to the 
movements of the brigade he commanded in Brigadier-General Sykes’s 
division after they left Manasses Junction, on the 29th, as follows: 

Q,. Which Avay did you move then ? 

A. We had been moving by the right flank; we then moved by the left flank; 
we moved doAvn by the road which takes us near a church, which I have since 
heard called Bethlehem church, in the direction of Gainesville. 

Q,. Where did you halt then? 

A. Near that church and in advance of it. 

Q. In what position were your troops then ? 

A. At that time directly on the road. 

Q. How were you formed when you halted there ? 

A. We were formed in line of battle immediately after we halted. 

Q. How long did you remain in that position ? 

A. I can not tell you, 

Q. During the balance of the day, I mean. 

A. We did not leave that ground that day except under various instructions 
that we got to countermarch; from time to time we countermarched, of course 
on the same ground. 

Q. You did not leave that ground ? 

A. No; except toward night Ave changed our direction, I think on to a little 
road that led us off to the turnpike. 

Q. Practically, you remained in that position during that day? 

A. During that day. 

Q. Do you recollect any stacking of arms? 

A. Yes; they stacked arms from time to time. 

Q, When you did that what position was your line in—still in line of battle? 

A. Always; always ready. 

EDMUND SCHRIVER’S TESTIMONY. 

Edmund Schriver, called by the recorder, being duly sworn, testi¬ 
fied as follows: 

Direct examination: 

Q. State your rank in the Army. 

A. Inspector-general and brevet major-general. 

Q. What position did you hold on the 29th of August, 1862 ? 

A. I was then on General McDowell’s staff, Avhen he commanded the Third 
Corps of the Army of Virginia. 

Q. Do you recollect being with him on the 29th of August, at the head of Gen¬ 
eral Porter’s column in the neighborhood of Dawkin’s Branch? 

A. I do. 

Q. Where did you go then? 

A. Went out to the right with the generals, whose object was, I believe, to 
make some observations, and then returned to the place Avhence we started. 

Q. Where did General McDowell leave you, or did he not leave you? 

A. He left somewhere to the east or to his right looking out toward the railroad, 
my recollection is. 

Q. Which direction did he take when he left? 

A. I think he went in a southerly direction, off to Avhere his divisions Avere. 

Q. Did you go with him? 

A. No. 

Q. Which direction did you take? 

A. I came a little to the left and Avent by General Porter’s headquarters, and 
then came down, if I recollect rightly, the road General McDoAA'ell Avent, through 
the woods; I did not go Avith bim. 

Q. You went down the Gainesville road then ? 

A. Yes. sir. 


96 


Q. Did you go back with General Porter, or did you follow him? 

A. I really can not recollect that: I know we met again. 

Q,. What transpired at that time when you met him there ? 

A. I had a little conversation; I can not exactly recollect what it was, except 
the general said or expressed the belief that he might become engaged with the 
enemy, and that he had no cavalrymen; he either then proposed, or I proposed, 
or at any rate the arrangement was made, that he should have half of General 
McDowell’s escort that was with me; it was turned over, and I left. He wanted 
them to send messages. 

Q. At that time where were the enemy? 

A. I am sure I do not know. 

COL. JOHN s. MOSBY’S TESTIMONY. 

John S. Mosby, formerly colonel of Maj. Gen. J. E. B. Stuart’s staff, 
testified as follows (board record, page 887): 

Q. When did that battle begin on the 29th—what time of day ? 

A. Pretty early on the morning of the 29th there was heavy fighting. 

Q. How long did that continue? 

A. My recollection is that there was heavy fighting during most of the day. 
Early in the morning I suppose I was about the rear of the center of Jackson’s 
t line, and I suppose about 8, or 9, or 10 o’clock there came a report that our left 

flank had been turned, over in the direction of Sudley; I went over there with 
the First Virginia Cavalry, according to my recollection; for the purpose of 
checking that, and we were there the whole of the day. 

Q,. What of the action could you see and hear? Describe all that you recall of 
that action. 

A. We could not see the fighting. I was with this cavalry, and I suppose we 
were half a mile, or part of the time within a mile of it. In the morning this 
regiment that I got with I suppose was not half a mile in the rear of Jackson’s 
line; but when the report came that the Federal cavalry was over on Jackson’s 
left, and there was danger of their capturing his wagons and ambulances that 
were in the rear of Sudley church, this cavalry was sent over there to protect 
Jackson’s left, and I went with it. 

* * * * * * 4 ; 

Q. Do you know what the losses of Jackson were in that action? 

A. No, sir. 

Q,. From 12 o’clock noon up to 3 o’clock in the afternoon, do you recollect the 
character of the fighting as far as you could judge from the sound ? 

A. My general recollection of it is that most of the day there w’as heavy fight¬ 
ing. I cannot particularize. 

Q. Musketry and artillery ? 

A. Musketry and artillery. 

LIEUT. COL. THOMAS C. H. SMITH’S TESTIMONY. 

Attention is also called to evidence of Lieut. Col. T. C. H. Smith, 
afterward brigadier-general, as follows: 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

0,. Will you state in what capacity you were serving in the Army of Virginia 
in its late campaign under General Pope in August last? 

A. I was aid-de-camp on the staff of General Pope. 

Q. Did you, or not, on the 28th or 29th of August, carry any orders from Major- 
General Pope to Major-General Porter which concerned his movements on those 
days ? 

A. I did not. 

Q. Did you, or not, see General Porter during either of the days of the 27th. 28th 
and 29th of August? ’ ’ 

A. I saw General Porter on the afternoon of the 28th. 

Q. At w’hat place and under what circumstances did you see him? ' 

A. I had been sent back to the ammunition on the train at Bristoe and charged 
with its distribution. General Porter wished over four hundred thousand 
rounds; General Hooker something over ninety thousand rounds. About 2 or 
3 o’clock I had sent forward to General Porter some three hundred and twenty 
thousand rounds, and had seized wagons to forward the balance, and left Cap¬ 
tain Piatt in charge. The business being then sufficiently forward, I went on to 
find General Pope. On getting to the point where I had left General Pope in 
the morning, I found he had moved on, and, to inquire the road he had taken 
I went to General Porter’s headquarters, near the Manassas water station. 1 
found General Porter m his tent, and asked him which road General Pope had 
taken, and he informed me. I had some ten minutes’ conversation with him 
One of his staff was present; I forget his name. 

Q. Will you state that conversation ? 

A. After asking him about the road, I told General Porter the amount of am¬ 
munition that I had sent forward to him, and also that the balance would come 


97 


immediately forward, I asked him if he had received it, or made some remark; 
I can not remember the exact expression. General Porter said that he had not; 
that was the substance of his reply—either that he had received hardly any of it, 
or none of it, if 1 remember aright. I expressed some surprise, and said that it had 
been sent forward to the front as ordered; and, either in reply to some question of 
mine or to some remark,or of himself, he said that he had no officers to take charge 
of it and distribute it, or to look it up, or something of that kind. 1 remarked 
that he could hardly expect us at headquarters to be able to send officers to distri¬ 
bute it in his corps ; that it had been sent forward on the_ road in the direction 
where his corps was. He replied that it was gone where it belonged ; that it 
was on the road to Alexandria, where we were all going. I do not know as it 
is evidence to give the spirit in which this was said—the way it impressed me. 
Those remarks were made in a sneering manner, and appeared to me to express 
a great indifference. There was then a pause for a moment. General Porter then 
spoke in regard to the removal of the sick and wounded from the field of Kettle 
Run, lie said it would hurt Pope, leaving the wounded behind. I told him that 
they were not to be left behind ; that 1 knew that a positive order—an impera¬ 
tive order—had been given to General Banks to bring all the wounded with him, 
and for that purpose to throw property out of the wagons if necessary. To this 
General Porter made no reply in words; but his manner to me expressed the 
same feeling that I had noticed before. This conversation, from General Porter’s 
manner and look, made a strong impression on my mind. I left him, as I have 
said, after an interview of about ten minutes, atid rode on, arriving at our head¬ 
quarters on Bull Run just as we entered them and pitched our tents for the night. 
After my tent was pitched, and I had had something to eat, I went over to Gen¬ 
eral Pope and reported to him briefly what I had done in regard to the ammu¬ 
nition. I then said to him, “General, 1 saw General Porter on my way here.” 
Said he, “Well, sir?” I said, “General, he will fail you.” “ Fail me?” said he ; 
“ what do you mean? What did he say? ” Said I, “ It is not so much what he 
said, though he said enough ; he is going to fail you.” These expressions I re¬ 
peat. I think I remember them with exactness, for I was excited at the time 
from the impression that had been made upon me. Said General Pope, “How 
can he fail me? He will fight where I put him ; he will fight where I put him;” 
or, “He must fight where I put him; he must fight where I put him”—one of 
those expressions. This General Pope .said with a great deal of feeling, and im¬ 
petuously, and perhaps overbearingly, and in an excited manner. I replied in 
the same way, saying that I was certain that Fitz-John Porter was a traitor; that 
I would shoot him that night, so far as any crime before God was concerned, if 
the law w'ould allow me to do it. I speak of this to show the conviction that I 
receiv'ed from General Porter’s manner and expressions in that interview. I 
have only to add that my prepossessions of him were favorable, as it was at head¬ 
quarters up to that time. I never had entertained any impressions against him 
until that conversation. I knew nothing with regard to his orders to move up 
to Kettle Run. I knew nothing of any failure on his part to comply with any 
orders. 

Q. State inoi-e distinctly the point where you saw General Porter on the 28th 
of August? 

A. He was encamped at the Manassas water station, between Bristoe and the 
junction. The water station was a short distance from his headquarters. [The 
witness indicated upon the map before the court where he thought the place to 
be.] I do not think the water station is more than one-third the distance from 
Bristoe to Manassas .Junction. That is my impression; I can not speak posi¬ 
tively about it. 

0,. In the conversation to which you refer, did or did not General Porter man¬ 
ifest any anxiety to get possession of, and have distributed in his corps, the 
ammunition of which you speak? 

A. No, sir; I thought he showed an utter indifiference upon the subject; showed 
it very plainly. 

Q. At w'hat hour of the day did this conversation between you and General 
Porter take place ? 

A. I think it must have been about 4 o’clock in the afternoon; half past 3 or 
4 o’clock. 

Q. In anything that was said in that conversation, or in the manner of General 
Porter, was there evidenced any desire or any willingness on his part to support 
General Pope in the military operations in which he was then engaged? 

A. Quite the contrary to that. 

Q. Can you state whether the disinclination to support General Pope, which 
you thought he manifested, was the result of disgust with the immediate serv¬ 
ice in which he was then engaged, or of hostility to the commanding general, or 
upon what did it seem to rest? 

A. It seemed to me to rest on hostility. But I do not know that I could ana¬ 
lyze the impression that was made upon me. I conveyed it to General Pope in 
the words that I have stated. I had one of those clear convictions that a man 
has a few times perhaps in his life as to the character and purposes of a person 
whom he sees for the first time. No man can expre.ss altogether how such an 
impression is gained from looks and manner, but it is clear. 

Lo-7 



Q. Had you passed over the road between Bristoe Station and Warrenton 
Junction on that day or on the previous day? 

A, On the previous day, the 27th, 1 came over it after General Pope. 

Q. At what hour of the day did you pass over it? 

A. I should say that I left our headquarters, about a mile from Warrenton 
Junction, about half past 4 or 5 o’clock in the afternoon. I should say it was 
past the middle of the afternoon. 

Q. What was the condition of the roads then? 

A. For the fir.st mile and a half, until you got to Cedar Run, the I’oad was bor¬ 
dered on either side by open fields or open woods, over which troops could march 
easily, in great part without going on the road. Indeed, 1 doubt whether there is 
any regular road a good part of the way up. The troops marched through the 
fields to Bristoe Station. 

Q. Were you or not present at the battle of the 29th of August? 

A. Yes, .sir; I was present. 

Q. Throughout the engagement? 

A. I left with General Pope when he rode on to the field, but on the way out 
he sent me with an order olf the road, so that I did not get on the field for two 
or three hours after that. 

Q,. At what time did you regard the battle as commencing ? 

A. The smoke was rising over a considerable portion of ground, I .should say a 
mile, plainly in view, when we were at Centreville; and there was some heavy 
cannonading. I should say it was about 10 or 11 o’clock when I first came to 
Centreville, and it was about 11 or 12 o’clock when 1 saw the appearance of which 
[ speak—the sign of a heavy action, from the smoke rising, it was very plainly 
in view from Centreville; you looked right down upon it, and you could hear 
the sound of the gun.s. 1 did not ride up to the town at first, but finding that Gen¬ 
eral Pope had not ridden on, as I had supposed,! rode back to Centreville, and 
then k was I saw the appearance 1 speak of, about 11 or 12 o’clock. 1 should 
mention, too, in order tlmt it may be clearly understood in regard to the action, 
that at the time I was sent off from the road, while General Pope was riding on 
the field there was a ce.ssation of cannon-firing for a considerable time, 1 should 
say for certainly a half an hour. 

Q. Was or was not the battle raging at 5 p. m. on that day? 

A. Yes, sir; severely. 


WIimiAM L. FAXON TESTIFIES. 

William L. Faxoii testifies as follows (board record, page 844); 

Q. State vour occupation ? 

A. Superintendent National Sailors’ Home, Quincy, Mass. 

Q. Were you in the military service of the United States on the 29th of August, 
1862; if so, in what capaeity ? 

A. I was assistant surgeon of the Thirty-second Massachusetts from the 2d of 
June, 1862, until along in Augu.st, 1863. 

* ^ ^ ^ % 

Q. Where were you on the night of the 27th ? 

A. In camp at Warrenton Junction. 

Q. In whose brigade and division? 

, A. I was in the second brigade, iirst division. Fifth Corps, Morell commanding 
division, and General Griifin commanding the brigade. 

Q. At what time did you leave Warrenton Junction, and what direction did 
your regiment take? 

A. The bugle sounded for an early start, and it was quite dark. We got out 
just before daylight, and my brigade lay outside of the wood in which we camped 
until the sun was pretty high. 

Q. What direction did you take from there? 

A. We marched olf a little to the left of the wood and crossed a little run, and 
went up to Catlett’s, and from there to Bristoe; followed the general direction 
of the Orange and Alexandria Railroad. 

Q. At what time did you arrive at Bristoe Station with your regiment? 

A. I judge about the middle of the afternoon. 

Q. During that time did you see General Porter? 

A. I saw General Porter only as I crossed the run at Bristoe. 

Q. Where was he at that time? 

A. He was at a little hou.se on the left hand of where I crossed; that is, on the 
side toward Washington. He and his staff were at a little house; I think it was 
A kind of peach orchard; I thiuk mo.st of them were sitting down. 

Q. Describe what you saw and heard, so far as General Porter was concerned. 

A. As I cro.ssed the run 1 heard General Porter make this remark : “Go teli 
Morell to halt his division ;’’ and he added, “ I don’t care a damn if we don’t get 
there.’’ I am very particular about those words, because I recollect them, and I 
have spoken of them. 

Q. On the next morning where were you? 

A. I marched with the regiment, and I think we went up about as far as Ma¬ 
nassas Junction, where we halted a short time ; then the regiment turned off to 


99 


the left, I believe, and crossed the road and came off’ on a road not exactly par¬ 
allel, bnt curving off and following the general direction of the Manassas Gap 
Railroad, I think. 

Q. Do you know the place where you halted? 

A. We halted on a small knoll; part of it overlooked quite a large valley; 
quite a large part of it was cleared, and on the right I saw the line of the Manas¬ 
sas Gap Railroad. 

Q. This point that I have indicated on the map as Dawkin’s Branch? 

A. I should take the branch to be a little farther away. I should take the 
branch to be about a mile away from the place where we halted; there might 
have been a dry run at the foot of this knoll, but I think not. 

Q. What did you do after you came to a halt there? 

A. I went down on the railroad. I went around generally in the woods and 
looked at the situation generally ; saw tiring was going on along the right of us, 
over toward Thoroughfare Gap. 

Q. Did you see any indications of an enemy immediately in your front? 

A. I di(l not see any for a mile or more; I looked along through the field close. 
General Porter came up and borrowed a glass of me; he asked me what I had 
seen. I told him 1 thought there was a battery coming in about a mile from us 
on the Washington side of the road. Not very far from it 1 think there was a 
small house, and I saw something that led me to suppose that there were men 
going in there. 

0,. Do you recollect what reply he made? 

A. I do not k-now that he made any reply to me. 

0, Did that battery open upon you? 

A. It opened shortly afterward; of course I can not tell you how many min¬ 
utes, because I did not keep any note of the time. I had no intention of making 
any memorandum. It opened and fired befpre the troops were withdrawn ; I 
think not exceeding three, might have been four, possibly but two, shots. 

Q,. Where did those shots strike? 

A. One of the shots struck a man in the front rank of the First Michigan In¬ 
fantry, and passed through his abdomen, and struck the first man in the rear 
rank in the thigh. 

Q. You were there at the time? 

A. I was at the place and saw the men. They were sitting or lying ju.st a little 
lower down on the slope of the hill in front of me. 

Q, Then wdiat was done ? 

A. Shortly after that we withdrew. 

Q,. What indications, if any, did you see of an enemy in your front or to your 
right and front, or to your right? 

A. To the right and front. 

Mr. Choate. I do not know that an assistant surgeon is a military expert. 

The Recjordek. I asked him what he saw. 

Mr. Ghoate. I have no objection to what he saw. 

A. [Continued.] Beyond this general clearing to quite a large extent there was 
a .smaller clearing, only a part of Avhich could be seen; there w'as a small open- 
itig in the woods; across that opening there came a small body of men ; they 
halted in the opening, Avhere there was evidently a depre.ssion, but their heads 
and shoulders could be plainly seen. 

Q. About how many men? 

A. 1 should judge, not over twenty. 

Q,. What else did you see of an enemy in your front, or to your right and front, 
or to your right? 

A. Nothing. 

Q. Could you see anything that would indicate the march of troops; if so, what ? 

A. I could see a large cloud of dust on the Warrenton turnpike, moving towards 
Centreville. 

Q. After that Avhere did you go? 

A. I went into camp with troops at night, after they withdrew. 

Q. Did they remain in this advanced position during the day ? 

A. They were withdrawn in the afternoon; the sun was declining in the heav¬ 
ens. 

Q,.. How far were they withdrawn? 

A. I should judge inside of a mile. 

Q. More than half a mile or less ? 

A. That 1 could not tell you; I could go to the spot, to the place where they 
came, because we withdrew on the same road, and then came back and went into 
camp again after dusk. 

CAPT. DOUGLAS POPE SWORN. 

Capt. Douglas Pope was then called by the Government and sworn 
and examined, as follows: 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Q. Will you state what is your rank in the military service? 

A. I am captain and additional aid-de-camp. 


' 100 


Q. Were you with the Army of Virginia in its late campaign under Major-Gen¬ 
eral Pope? 

A, I was. 

Q. In what capacity ? 

A. As additional aid-de-camp to General Pope. 

Q. Were you or not on the field of the battle of Manassas on Friday, the 29tb 
of August? ^ 

A. I was. 

Q. Did you or not on that day bear any order from General Pope to General 
Porter; and, if so, what was its character, and at what hour did you bear and de¬ 
liver it? 

A. I received an order from General Pope, to be delivered to General Porter, 
at half past 4 o’clock. The purport of the order I did not know at the time. I 
went directly to General Porter with that order, and it reached him by 5 o’clock. 

Q. Was or was not that the only order which on that day you had to General 
Porter from General Pope? 

A. It was. 

Q. Where did you find General Porter with his command ? 

A. I found him at the forks of the road leading from Manassas to Gainesville 
and Groveton, on the railroad. 

Q. What distance was that from Manassas Junction ? 

A. I do not know, of my own knowledge; but I have heard that it was between 
two and three miles. 

Q,. What distance from the battlefield where the engagement was then pend¬ 
ing? 

A. When I received the order I was to the right of the battlefield, and I sup¬ 
pose it was a distance of about three miles from General Porter. 

Porter was not with the head of his column, hut back within two 
miles of Manassas Junction. 

Q. Did you or not, on delivering the order, learn its character ? 

A. I did not. 

Q. What stateumnts, if any, did General Porter make to you in regard to the 
movements which the order contemplated he should make? 

A. In a conversation which I had with General Porter, after his reading the 
order, he explained to me on the map where the enemy had come down in force 
to attack him and had estalilished a battery. I understood him to .say that the 
enemy had opened upon him; but what he had done I do not now remember. 

Q. How long did you remain with General Porter? 

A. About fifteen minutes, I suppose. 

Q. While you were there, or at any time before you left, did you observe any 
orders given or any indication of preparation for a movement in the direction 
of the batttlefield? 

A. I did not. 

Q. In what condition were the troops there at that time? 

A.' I saw only a portion of them; the portion that I saw I believed belonged 
to General Sykes’s division. They were on the road between the forks of the 
road and Manassas—what small portion of the troops I saw that belonged to 
General Porter’s corps. It was my impression they were halted there; I saw the 
arms of some of them stacked. 

Q. They had their arms stacked ? 

A. Yes, sir. 

0,. Was not the sound of the artillery of the battle then pending distinctly aud¬ 
ible at that boint ? 

A. It was. 

Q,. And was the sound of the small-arms distinctly audible at that point? 

A. In regard to the small-arms I do not remember; but I could hear the artil¬ 
lery very plainly, very distinctly. 

Q,. Was it continuous, indicating a continued action ? 

A. It wds. 

Q. Did or did not General Porter make any inquiry of you at all as to the con¬ 
dition of the forces then engaged in battle? 

A. There were inquiries made of me by an officer—one of General Porter’s 
aids-de-camp, I think. 1 do not think that General Porter said anything to me 
about it. 

Page 58, G. C. M.: 

Q,. As you have passed over the road and know the* distance, will you state 
within what time General Porter and his command could have reached the bat¬ 
tlefield after the delivery of that order? 

A. To have reached where I had received the order would have taken him two 
or three hoiirs, I suppose—that is, to the extreme right of our army. 

0,. Within what time would iWiave required him to reach the right flank of the 
enemy? 

A. I could not state, because I do not know where the right flank of the enemy 


101 


then wjis. My impression, though, from what General Porter said, was that the 
enemy were nearly in his front. I supposed them about a mile from him. That, 
was merely my impression from the conversation I had with General J^orter. 

Q. Did you or not have another interview with Genex*al Porter after that time? 

A. I did not. After receiving a written reply to the order I had delivered to 
General Porter, I started on my way hack, and I suppose I had got a mile or a 
mile and a half from where General Porter was when I was overtaken by an or¬ 
derly, who said General I’orter wished to see me. I got part way back when I 
met an officer, 1 supposed an aid-de-eamp of General Porter, who said that Gen¬ 
eral Porter wished to see me. I went back, and this aid-de-camtold me I better 
wait a few minutes. 1 did not see General Porter then. 

Q. Had you, or not, seen this officer whom you suppo.sed to be an aid-de-camp 
during your lir.st interview with General Porter? 

A. I had, and had had a eonver.sation with him. 

Q,. In the presence of General I’orter? 

A. While General Porter was writing the reply to the order I had delivered to 
him. 

Q,. What seemed to be his rank ? 

A. He was a first lieutenant, I think. 

Q. Did he, or not, perform any actor make any remark in the presence of Gen¬ 
eral Porterwhich indueetl you to believe that he was an aid-de-camp? Ifso,state 
what that remark and what that act was. 

A. I do not remember his making any remark to General Porter, or General 
Porter saying-anything to him. My impression is that he told me that he was 
an aid-de-camp. I firmly believed at the time that he was General Porter’s aid- 
de-camp. I did not see any act indicating that, excepting that he was associated 
with General Porter; hewasveryclo.se to General Porter at the time I had 
the conversation with him; within hearing of General Porter if lie had listened 
to it. 

Q,. Do you, or not, suppose that his statement to you, that he was an aid-de- 
camp of General Porter, could have been heard by General Porter if he had been 
listening to your conversation? 

A. It could. 

Q. Do I not understand you, then, to say that that conversation occurred in 
fact in the presence of General Porter? 

A. In the presence of General Porter ; yes, sir, 

Q,. Were you not charged by that officer with a message to General Pope 
that a scout had come in reporting that the enemy were retreating through 
Thoroughfare Gap? 

A. I was. 

Q. Did you regard that message as given to you seriouslj’^ or jestingly ? 

A. Seriously. 

Q. How long a time had elapsed from the time of your interview with General 
Porter until your return to General Porter’s encampment? 

A. About three-quarters of an hour, I suppose; between that and an hour. 

Q. On your return to his encampment, did you or not observe any pi'eparation 
on the part of his officers or of the troops for an advance upon the enemy ?, 

A. I did not. 

!(: H: * !)! * 4: * 

Q. What was the dress of this officer whom you supposed to be an aid-de-camp ? 

A. I do not remember. I do not know whether he had a staff ofliccr’s shoul¬ 
der-straps on or a line officer’s. I do not remember now which it was. He was 
in uniform. 

The examination by the judge-advocate here closed. 

Examination by the accused : 

Q. How does the witness fix the hour of the day when he left General Pope to 
bear the order? 

A. From the date of the order, which was dated at 4.30 p. m 

Q. Was the road which you took to bear the order from General Pope to Gen¬ 
eral Porter direct or circuitous? 

A. My impression is that it was a direct road. 

Q. Did you pass through Mana.ssas Junction? 

A. I did not, that is, in conveying the order to General Porter. I did not. 

Q. Did you go up the railroad toward General Porter? 

A. I did not; I met him right on the railroad. 

0,. You have stated how you fi.x the time when you received the order; how 
do you fix the time of its delivery ? 

A. By the distance and the rate at which I carried tl’.e order. 

Q. And so fixing it, you determine the order to have been delivered at 6 
o’clock ? 

A. Not precisely at 5 o’clock; by 5 o’clock. 

Q. You mean as early as 5 o’clock ? 

A. As early as 5 o’clock. It may have been three or four minutes afteir)o’elock. 

Q. We understand you to say t^hat you make this judgmcntas to the time from 
thp distance,which you had to pass over and the rate you went ? 


f 


102 


A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When you first started to go back from General Porter to General Pope, 
did you take the same road back by wliich you had come to General Porter? 

A. I did. 

TESTIMONY OP GENERAL GEORGE SYKES. 

On the original trial Brig. Gen. George Sykes swore, after saying that 
he was with the petitioner when an oflicer brought him the order from 
General Pope, as follows (G. C. M. record, pages 177, 178): 

By Judge-Advocate : 

Q. Did General Porter make known to you the character of that order? 

A. He did not. 

Q. Did he read it in your presence? 

A. Not that 1 know of. 

Q,. How long did you remain with General Porter on that occasion, after the 
receipt of this order? 

A. I continued with him from that time all night. 

* * iti * * 

Q. You had then, as I understand you to say, no knowledge that a positive or¬ 
der had been given by General Pope on that afternoon for General Poi'ter to 
attack the enemy on their right flank? 

A. 1 had no such knowledge. 

The evidence of General Sykes leads directly to the conclusion that 
the petitioner had no intention or desire to attack or he would have told 
his division commander then and there. 

Look at it in any light, there was no effort then, or at any time 
afterward on that day, to put Sykes’s division into position to support 
or participate in an assault. 

CAPT. GEORGE M. RANDALL’S TESTIMONY. 

Capt. George M. Randall, Twenty-third United States Infantry, a 
Government witness (board record, page 725), testified as follows: 

Direct examination : 

Q. On the 29th of August, 1862, where were you, and what rank did you hold 
In the service? 

A. Second lieutenant. Fourth Infantry, attached to Sykes’s division. 

Q. Where were you on that morning ? 

A. We were at Bristoe Station. 

Q. Moved up from there to Manassas .Junction? 

A. Yes, sir ; from Manassas Junction we took position on the Gainesville road 
beyond Bethlehem church. 

Q. When you were at Manassas Junction were there any indications of an ac¬ 
tion? If so, what were they? 

A. Yes, I think so; I heard very distinctly heavy firing; as near as I can recol¬ 
lect, it was about half past 9 or 9 o’clock in the morning. 

Q,. How long did you continue to hear that? 

A. I do not recollect; I heard artillery firing during the day .several times, and 
I think along about 3 or quarter to 4 o’clock in the afternoon 1 heard it again; 
quite a brisk firing at that time. 

Q,. How far did you get upon the Manassas and Gainesville road ? 

A. I think we moved about three miles, probably four miles, beyond the 
church. 

Q,. Did you go up to the front? 

A. Very near it; sufficiently far that I could see the opening between our lines 
and wdiere the rebels were supposed to be; at that time we were in a belt of tim¬ 
ber; the head of the column, as near as I can recollect, halted at the edge of it. 

Q,. What indications were there of an enemy in front of you ? 

A. I heard several shots exchanged, and also some few shots from the skirmish 
line. 

Q,. Anything more? 

A. That is all. 

Q. Did you see any enemy ? 

A. I didmot. 

0,. What did your brigade then do? 

A. I think sometime in the afternoon we countermarched, probably about two 
and a half miles, and then halted and bivouacked for the night. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Bullitt : 

Q,. About what time did your company get up into the front? 

A. I think about 11 o’clock. 


Q,. How near to the front were you? 

A. I suppose we were three-quarters of a mile from the front; sufiSciently near 
60 that we could see the open space. 

******* 

Q. Did you change your position that day at all to the right or left? 

A. I think not. I think we moved to the rear. 

Q. You have no recollection of being moved back into the woods? 

A. I think we halte<l in the woods. 

Q. The only move yoti made was to march back about two miles? 

A. Yes; that is all 1 recollect. 

* * * * * * * 

Q. How far back in the woods were you? 

A. We went buck about two and a half miles or two miles, but the exact point 
it is impossible for me to mark ; we may have moved up here [in the woods] and 
taken a zigzag. 

* * * * * * * 

Q,. Then you took your position in the woods, and then you subsequently 
countermarched toward Bethlehem church. Now, I want to know whether 
you made any other movement after you had passed Bethlehem chtirch and 
got up toward Dawkin’s Branch exce)jt first to march to the point where you 
first halted; then you got into the woods, a'nd afterward countermarched abtml 
two miles back to Bethlehem church ; did you make any other movement ♦lur¬ 
ing that day? 

A. No, sir. 

* * ***** 

Q. Will you explain what you mean by countermarching in that particular 
instance? 

A. We marched to the front, and then faced the column about and went to the 
rear. 

Q. Did you countermarch by brigade? 

A. By regiments and brigades, as near as I can recollect. 

Q. By which, regiments or brigades? 

A. By brigades, I think. 

Q. You were in the leading brigade as you went forward? 

A. I was in the leading brigade, Sykes’s division. 

Q. When you countermarched and marched to the rear where were the other 
two brigades of the division ? 

A. I think they were going to the rear. 

Q. You did not pass them? 

A. No, sir; I think not. ' 

Q. Did you march in the road going back? 

A. Yes, as near as I can recollect, 

CHARLES DUFFEE SWORN. 

Charles Dulfee (page 609, board record), called on behalf of the 
Government, being duly sworn, testified as follows: 

Direct examination by the Recorder : 

Q,. Where do you reside ? 

A, Washington Court House, Ohio. 

Q. On the original trial in 1863 of the petitioner here you were called as a wit¬ 
ness for the Government, were you not? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And testified as to the direction you took in delivering a certain order, 
commonly known as the “ 4.30 p. m. order?” 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where were General Pope’s headquarters on Friday afternoon, August 29, 
1863, about 4 o’clock ? 

A. He was at the right-hand side of the stone house on the hill. 

Do you know what that hill is called? 

A. I don’t recollect now. I recollect the place very well. 

Q,. Where were you at the time that Captain Pope received the 4.80 order? 

A. 1 was at General Pope’s headquarters, not over three or four rods from his 
headtiunrters, in the edge of the woods, 

Q. What were you doing there? 

A. A waiting orders. 

Q,. What then transpired? 

A. l^aptain Pope trailed for his horse and mine and I fetched them up; Mr. 
Ruggles, 1 believe, gave him the order. He was giving him the directions of 
Porter’s headquarters when 1 came up. I spoke up and told him 1 knew the 
road ; I had been throrigh there before. 

Q. How soon after that did you start? 

A. We immediately started. I think I was mounted when he was speaking; 
about the road, if I recollect right. 


104 


Q. Have you since been over the route that you took at that time? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Recently? 

A. Last Tuesday. 

Q,. Under my instructions? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In this conversation with Mr. Collins, when you pointed out the route on 
that map, did you not state that the route which you took was an old road, not 
used by wagons, but wagons could have traveled it? 

A. Yes; part of the road was. 

Q,. I asked you what you said to him. 

A. I doji’t know whether I told him the whole road was so or not. 

Q,. I only asked you what you told Collins. Did you tell him that it was an 
old road not used by wagons, but wagons could have traveled over it. 

A. Do you mean to say the whole distance? 

Q. I ask you what you said to him. 

A. I didn’t tell him the whole road; a part of the road. 

Q,. You told him a part of the road? 

A. Yes, sir. * 

Q. Diu you tell him that neither Captain Pope nor any other officer went with 
you, but that five or seven men went with you ? 

A. I did. I didn’t want him to know that Captain Pope was with me. I didn’t 
care much about answering his questions. I was not under oath. 

Q. You were not under oath, and therefore you did not feel bound to tell him 
the truth? 

A. That is it exactly. I found out when he got to that point what he wanted, 
and I evaded the question. 

Q. You did tell him Captain Pope was not with you? 

A. I did, as soon as I mistrusted what his object was. 

Q. Did you tell him that you were ordered to leave three of the men with you 
at General Porter’s if there were five, or four if there were seven with you ? 

A. I don’t recollect about the number. 

Q,. Do you recollect telling him that you were ordered to leave any men with 
General Porter? 

A. I told him that was the direction; I don’t know whether I told him I was 
so directed. 

Q. Do you recollect saying to him that you traveled slowly, for both you and 
your horse were worn out, and besides that you did not know but you might 
run into the enemy at any time? 

A. Not going; coming back. 

Q. I ask you what you said to him. Did you tell him that you traveled slowly 
for both you and your horse were worn out? 

A. I told him we traveled slowly eoming baek. 

Q. Did you use the words, “We traveled slowly, for both I and my horse were 
worn out?’’ 

A. Coming baek. 

Q. Did you say coming back? 

A. Yes; I did. ' 

0,. And did you say to him, “and besides I did not know but what we might 
run into the enemy at any time? ’’ 

A. Yes; coming back. 

Q. You said coming back ? 

A. Yes; that was the only time I suggested running into the enemy, coming 
back ? 

Q. Did you say, “ I walked my horse a good deal of the way; after I got on the 
main road at ‘ E,’ I soon found it full of General Porter’s troops, and they pre¬ 
vented my getting along very fast?’’ 

A. 1 supposed it was Porter’s troops. [Witness looks at the map.] This is too 
far down. I did not see any “E’’ on the map when I was talking to him. 

Q. Vou did notsay to him, “After getting on the main road at ‘E’ I soon found 
it full of General Porter’s troops?’’ 

A. Not at “E.” I supposed them to be Porter’s troops; but it was farther up 
this way ; not as far down as that was. 

0,. It was nearer to the railroad than the letter E on the Collins map? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you tell him it was about 6 p. m. when you delivered to General Porter 
the order? 

A. No, sir. He wanted me to say so, but I wouldn’t do it. Then he wanted 
me to say it was half-past 6, and I wouldn’t do it. 

Q. You did not want to deceive him, then? 

A. I had an object in not letting him know about Captain Pope. I didn’t want 
to be summoned. 

Q. Your object in not telling him that Pope was with you was in order not to 
be summoned here? 

A. No; I didn’t want to be summoned. 


105 


Q. That was the reason you deceived him in reference to Captain Pope being 
with you ? 

A. That was one reason. 

Q,. You did not say that it was not earlier than that, but may have been a little 
later? 

A. How is that? Earlier than what? 

Q. “ I think it was about 6 p. m. when I delivered the order to General Porter. 
It was not earlier than that, and may have been a little later.” 

A. No, sir; I did not say that, because I knew it was not so. I knew it did not 
take me any hour and a half to ride four and a half or five miles. 

******!(: 

By the Recorder : 

Q. ^Vho commanded the battalion of your regiment at the headquarters of 
General Pope? 

A. I don’t know as I can tell. I was not with the company much; I was at 
headquarters all the time; but I think Captain Jones, who was a lieutenant at 
that time. 

Q. Who was the lieutenant-colonel of your regiment ? 

A. T. C. H. Smith, who was then at Pope’s headquarters, and I believe Menken 
had command of a squadron, but I don’t recollect whether it was so or not. 

Q. Where did you first see this map called the ” Collins map? ” 

A. I do not know. I saw one map at Columbus. Whether that is the same 
one or not I do not know. I have no marks by which I can tell. 

Q. Who had it there? 

A. Francis Collins. 

Q,. Have you seen him since that time ? 

A. 1 saw him here in the court-room ; met him at the door on Friday. 

Q. Did you make these marks on that map? [Red marks.] 

A. No, sir. 

Q. Are you familiar with maps of that kind? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. What is your occupation ? 

A. I am now in the grocery business; my regular business is boots and shoes. 

Q. Were you acquainted with Mr. Collins before this interview that you had 
with him in Columbus? 

A. I saw him once before that, but I was never acquainted with him. 

Q. Was that the first interview that you ever had with him in reference to this 
case ? 

A. I had another interview with him, but he did not tell me at that first inter¬ 
view what his object was, only that he wanted to see me. 

Q. How long ago is that? 

A. Ido not know as I can recollect j ust what year it was in. It was about 
eighteen months or maybe two years after the first trial. 

Q. What was the occasion of your going to Columbus from your home at Wash¬ 
ington Court House? 

A. Do you mean the second time? 

Q. Yes. 

A. I received a letter from Mr. Collins requesting me to come to Columbus— 
that he wanted a private interview with me. He stated it would be at his ex¬ 
pense if I came. I did not know what he wanted. I supposed it was the Por¬ 
ter Ciise, and I dropped him a few lines and told him if he would send me $10 I 
would go, and gave him reference in Columbus that I would perform my part 
of the contract. In a few days the $10 eame, and I went. 

Q,. What did Mr. Collins say he wanted with you? 

A. He told me when I first went into his office that it was in regard to the 
Porter trial. We talked a few minutes, and he then invited me over to his 
house. 

Q. What did he ask you? 

A. It was in regard to the time when we left General Pope’s headquarters 
with that 4.30 order, the road that we traveled, and the time that we got there. 

Q. Go on and describe, as near as you can, what questions he asked you. 

A. He asked me the road, asked me the point where General Porter’s head¬ 
quarter’s were, and what time I thought it took me to travel the distance, what 
time I started, and the time I got there ; says he, “Can you recollect whether it 
was as late as half-past 6?” I told him no. Then he wanted to know if it was 
as late as 6. I told him it was not. 

WILLIAM B. LORD TESTIFIES. 

William B. Lord testifies as follows (board record, marginal page 
969): 

Q. Will you state substantially what that interview was, and what General 
Porter said ? 

A. I had been directed by the judge-advocate of the court to proceed to the 
rooms of General Porter and to look for some telegrams that had been introduced 


106 


In evidence that day, and that had been mislaid in someway. "While there look¬ 
ing over some papers General Porter made the remark, “ I was not loyal to Pope; 
there is no denying that.” 

Q. Do you recall anything else that he .said in that connection? 

A. I can not say that I do, and I dotibt if I should recall that now but for the 
peculiarity of the circumstance, and the fact that I made a record of it mysell a 
few days afterward; otherwise I think likely 1 should have forgotten it. 

Q. That was during the progress of his trial before a general court-martial? 

A. It was. 

The President of the Board. The decision is that the letter is admis.sible 
for the purpose stated by counsel, namely, not to prove the fact, but to test the 
credibility of the wutness. 

By the Recorder i 

Q,. You have stated in your cross-examination that the feelings ■which had act¬ 
uated you you expressed at the time you wrote that letter to your wife. It was 
not called for by the counsel for the petitioner; I will call for it. Please let me 
know what you stated on the subject, if you have that letter here. 

A. [Witness produces a book.] Shall 1 read? 

Q. Just that part and no more. 

The witness read as follows: 

“ I have been a little bothered about General Fitz-.Tohn Porter. I had to go 
to his room on Monday to get .some papers that lielonged to the court that he 
had had to copy. One of the reporters of the New York Times was along with 
me. While in the room, after some conversation, General Porter made the re¬ 
mark, ‘Well, I wasn’t loyal to Pope; there is no denying that.’ Now, that is 
really the charge against him before the court-martial—that he did not do his 
duty as an officer before the enemy, and that he did not act rightly toward 
General Pope, his commanding officer. General Porter said what he did in the 
privacy of his own room ; without thinking of the effect of his words. After 
thinking it over, I have concluded it better not to say anything about it now, 
though I would not promise as much for that newspaper correspondent.” 

Q. That is your letter-press copy of your letter to your wife? 

A. It is. 

Q. Do you retain usually letter-press copies of your letters to your wife ? 

A. All of my correspondence. 

Q. Do you know whether or not some one may not have heard the same lan¬ 
guage at some other time, or an affidavit made on the subject and communi¬ 
cated to Senator Chandler? 

A. I know nothing about that. 

WATERMAN L. ORMSBY CALLED. 

■Waterman L. Ormsby (board record, page 638), called by the re¬ 
corder, being duly sworn, was examined, and testified as follows: 

Direct examination: 

Q. Where do you reside? 

A. Two hundred and forty-seven Putnam avenue, Brooklyn. 

ti. Do you know the petitioner? 

A. By reputation. 

Q. I mean do you know him when you see him? 

A. 1 should not have known him to-day if he had iiotbeen pointed out to me. 

Q. Do you recollect having seen him at any time during the month of Decem¬ 
ber, 18f)2? 

A. I do. 

Q. Where was it ? 

A. In his room in the city of Washington, at his residence. 

Q. About what time in the month was it? 

A. I can’t recollect. 

Q. In reference to the beginning or end of the month? 

A. I have no reeollection.. 

Q. At the time you .saw him there were you accompanied by anybody? If so 
by whom ? ’ 

A. By Mr. Lord, the official stenographer of the court-martial. 

Q. What is his first name? 

A. I think William Blair Lord is his name. 

Q. Do you recall the purpose for which you went to General Porter’s room? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Please state it. 

A.' I went in company with Mr. Lord for the purpose of procuringsome docu¬ 
ments which had been offered in evidence that day, and whieh Mr. Lord desired 
for the official record, and which I desired to be used in my report for the New 
York Times, which I then represented. 

Q,. At what time do I understand that General Porter’s trial was in progress? 

A. It was then in v>rogress. , 

Q. Do you recollect the conversation ? 


107 


A. Only a small part of it. 

Q. Do yon recollect any remarks made by General Porter? 

A. I do. One made a strong impression upon me at the time. 

Q. What had it relation to ? i 

. A. It had relation to his feeling toward General Pope and General McClellan. 

Q. What was the remark which he made ? 

A. “ I wasn’t loyal to Pope; I was loyal to McClellan.” 

Q. What did you at the time understand that the remark had reference to ? 

Mr. Choate. That I object to. His understanding of the matter is unimpor¬ 
tant. 

The Recorder. On the contrary, if he knows what the conversation is about. 

Mr. Cho.\te. He .should certainly be permitted to give all the conversation 
that he recollects, b\it anything outside of that certainly cannot be drawn from 
the witness. 

The President of the Board. Perhaps the recorder can change the form of 
the question so as to elicit the facts without its being subject to objection. 

The Recorder. 1 will take the ruling of the board upon the question. 

Mr. Choate. We suppose that it is the board’s understanding of anything that 
General Porter may have been proved to have said, and not the witness’ under¬ 
standing. 

The President op the Board. I suggest to the recorder that it might be bet¬ 
ter to ascertain what transpired to produce an understanding on the part of the 
witness. 

The Recorder. Then the question is overriiled? 

The President of the Board. For the present. 

Q,. When that remark was made what was the conversation ? 

A. It would be impossible for me to state another word of that conversation 
positively. My recollection is that it referred to the testimony which had bee- 
given that day, and concerning which General Poi-ter seemed to be considera 
excited. 

EVIDENCE OP GENERAL GRIFFIN. 

Then take the evidence of General Griffin. General Griffin com¬ 
manded one of the brigades of Morell’s division. Gr iffin retired with 
his brigade to Centreville. He said: 

In the evening, a little after dark, there were some very heavy volleys of mus¬ 
ketry, the enemy evidently driving our troops right before them. That mus¬ 
ketry was to our right and front, I should say two miles, maybe not so far; 
maybe further. I should have stated, when I stated that I heard no other firing 
btit artillery, that in marching we had some skirmish firing. 

Q. You spoke of having returned from the movement you made to the right 
in consequence of obstacles that you encountered. What was the character of 
those obstacles, and what ett'orts did you make to overcome them? 

A. I led off my column. We ran up into some little thick pine bushes. We 
halted there. The next order I got was to move back again. Some one re¬ 
ported that we could not get through. I made no reconnaissance whatever my¬ 
self. 

Q,. You .say that you had failed to get through to the right during the day of 
the 29th of August. Will you state what efforts were made by you, or by Gen¬ 
eral Porter, to get through on the right during that day? 

A. I merely obeyed orders. 

He does not say that he made any effort, but “I merely obeyed 
orders. ’ ’ 

My position was at the head of my brigade. What efforts General Porter 
made I am not aw-are of. 

GENERAL MORELL’S TESTIMONY. 

General Morell, division commander of Porter, says: 

Colonel Marshall reports that two batteries have come down in the woods on 
our right, toward the railroad, and two regiments of infantry on the road. If 
this be so, it will be hot here in the morning. 

Q. Was that returned with this indorsement of General Porter: “Move the 
infantry and everything behind the crest, and conceal the guns. We must hold 
that place and make it too hot for them. Come the same game over them that 
they do over us, and get your men out of sight ? ” 

A. Yes, that was the next one. 

Q. When that was received by you, directing you to move your infantry and 
everything behind the crest, and conceal the guns, where were your infantry and 
the other troops? 

A. At that time they were deployed in line, mostly two brigades, along the crest 
that leads to the descent towards Dawkin’s Branch. 

Q. It was from there that you were directed to move? 

A. From there I was directed to put the men under cover. On this left-hand 


108 


side of the road as we advanced it was all open ground; on the right-hand side 
bushes. One of my batteries, supported by a brigade, was on the right-hand side 
of the road, just on the crest of the ridge; the other battery on this side. When 
General Porter sent me that order I put them back into the tine bushes; and the 
other two batteries on this side of the road were on a slight depression; I supposed 
the ridge in front would conceal them from the enemy. I had three batteries, and 
one was in position all the time. 

General Morell continues, on page 423, board record: 

Q. Why is it that on No. 30, the communication from General Porter to your¬ 
self, and on those that follow, there is no memorandum of the hour and minute 
of tlie receipt ? 

A. It wjis always my practice to note thfe hour of the receipt. Two days pre¬ 
vious to that, on'the march from Kelly’s Ford to the Junction, I injured my 
watch, and then I had to guess at the time. 

Q. And you did not put on the guess? 

A. I did not put on the guess. 

Q. Will you state whether the indorsement of General Porter on No. 31 was 
received by you as appears upon it? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Your communication to him is this: 

“ General Porti;r : I can move everything out of sight except Hazlett’s bat¬ 
tery. Griflin is supporting it, and is on its right, principally in the pine bushes. 
The other batteries are retired out of sight. Is this what you mean by every¬ 
thing? 

“GEO. W. MORE!.!., Major-General." 

A. Yes, sir. 

The indorsement was read, as follows : 

“ I think you can move Hazlett’s, or the most of it, and post him in the bushes 
with the others, so as to deceive. I would get everything, if possible, in ambus¬ 
cade. All goes well with the other troops. 

“ The WiTNE-ss. Yes, everything was out of sight except Ilazlett’s battery. 
That was exposed all day long.” 

Q. Then, on the receipt of No. 31 from General Porter, you did not succeed in 
getting Hazlett’s battery under cover? 

A. No, I didn’t attempt to. I wanted to keep one battery in position. That 
was in front of the bushes, with a brigade immediately behind it. The other 
two brigades were massed in the rear of that. 

General Morell : Tell me what is passing, quickly. If the enemy is coming, 
hold to him, and I will come up. Post your men to repulse him. 

F. J. PORTER, Major-General. 

Q. What next? 

A. Then, I think, 35; which is a note from me to General Porter: 

“General Porter: Colonel Marshall reports a mo vement in front of his left. 
1 think we had better retire. No infantry in sight, and I am continuing the move¬ 
ment. Stay where you are, to aid me if necessary. 

“MORELL.” 

‘ ‘ Colonel Marshall reports a movement in front of his left. I think 
we had better retire. ’ ’ 

What does Porter say ? 

General Morell : I have all within reach of you. I wish you to give the 
enemy a good shelling without wasting ammunition, and push at the same time 
a party over to see what is going on. We can not retire while McDow'ell holds 
his own. 

F. J. P. 

I desire in this connection to call the attention of the Senate to the 
following facts. General Morell, in his testimony, says: 

Q,. Did the putting of those that were foremost under cover cause any move¬ 
ment of those behind them? 

A. I think not. I think those immediately behind Hazlett’s battery remained 
where they were, and the others went to the rear. 

>|! H< >): 4: 4: 

Q. Will you look at the communication from General Porter to Generals Mc- 
' Dqwell and King, on that day, which is printed on page 243 of the original record? 

“Kjenerals McDowell and King: I found it impossible to communicate by 
crossing the woods to Groveton. The enemy are in great force on this road, and 
as they appear to have driven our forces back, the force of the enemy having 
advanced and ours retired, I have determined to withdraw to Manassas. I have 
attempted to communicate with MeDowell and Sigel, but my messengers have 
run iivto the enemy.” 

Q,. What I want to ask is, whether you had any knowledge of that communica¬ 
tion being made that day ? 

A. I don’t remember it. 


109 


Q. Did you receiveor know of any order indicating a withdrawal to Manassas 

A. No, sir; nothing of the kin I. 

Q. Or any movement in that direction ? 

A, Nothing of the kind. 

Q. Will you look at a copy of a communication frou General Warren to General 
Sykes, dated 5.45 p. m., August 29,1862, which hasb« en put in evidence? [Paper 
shown witness.] In this General Warren usesthese an ords. I will read the whole 
of it: 

“ General Sykes : I received an order from Mr. ( utting to advance to the sup¬ 
port of Morell; I faced about and did so. 1 soon met Griflin’s brigade withdraw¬ 
ing, by order of General Morell, who wiis not pushed out, but retiring. I faced 
about and marched back two hundred yards or so ; 1 met then an orderly from 
General Porter to General Morell saying he must push on and press the enemy ; 
that all was going well for us and he w’ns retiring, (triffin then faced about and 
I am following him to support General Morell, as ordered. None of the batteries 
are closed up to me. 

“ Respectfully, 


“ G. K. WARREN.” 


Q. Do you know anything of that allusion to yourself in it? 

A. No, sir; I never gave (General Griflin any order of that kind. 

Q,. What kind ? 

A. That he should retire or retreat. There was no order to leave the front, 
except to get under cover of those bushes. 

Q,. State whether during the whole of the 29th you had your whole division 
in command ready to meet any attack that might be made by the endmy. 

A. Ye.‘-; 1 did. 

Q. Although they were under cover, as you have described? 

A. Within reach at any rate of the batteries, just at the other side of the road— 
within a few’ minutes’ call. 

Q,. Were your advanced regiments and skirmishers in such position in the 
neighhorluxxl of Dawkin’s Branch that if any movement toward attacking you 
had been made by the enemy you would have know’u it in time to receive it w'ith 
the whole of your division? 

. A. 1 Ihink so. 

Q. Will you state what action you took in obedience to No. 37, which directed 
you to push up two regiments su|>porte<l by two t)thers ijreceded by skirmish¬ 
ers, the regiments at intervals of tw'o hundred yards,and attack the section of 
artillery opposed to you—what you did with the four regiments indicated, and 
what you did with the rest of your division in connection with what you did 
or what you ordered ? 

^ ^ 4 : Hi ^ 

A. When I received that order—the latter part says ” the battle works w’ell on 
our right”— 

Hi ‘•H Hi . ^ ^ ^ 

‘‘ the battle works well on our right; the enemy said to be retiring up the pike ”— 
I said immediately to the person who brought it that the order was given under 
a misapprehen.sion. We knew the enemy w’ere not retiring; and I believe I 
sent that message to General Porter. I immediately gave orders to move the 
whole of ray division to the front to be in readiness to support the four regi¬ 
ments. While that was going on I received a verbal order from Colonel Locke 
to make an attack. When I received this order it was quite late in the after¬ 
noon, just before sunset: the sun Avas almost touching the tops of the trees. 
And soon after that an order in Avriting, Avhich is No. 38, “ to put the men in po¬ 
sition and remain during the night.” 

General Morell’s attention was here called to Colonel Locke’s state¬ 
ment on courLniartial trial, and then this follows: 


‘'He (that is, the messenger from General Pope) handed the general a note, 
which I aftei’Avard ascertained was an order for him to attack the enemy at once. 
He very soon afterward ordered me to ride up toCJeneriil Morell and direct him 
to move forAvard and attack the enemy immediately, and to say that he AA’ould 
be up himself right after me.” 


Then on page 223: 

‘‘Toward the close of the day, Avhen I Avas sent by General Porter to General 
Morell Avit h the order for him to move forward his division and attack the enemy, 
on my Avay up to General Morell I pa.ssed Colonel (noAV General) Warren.” 

Is that, as you noAV understand it, the verbal order AA’hich General Locke finally 
brought to you to attack after you had received and Avere proceeding to execute 


A. I think noAV that it is, from conA’^ersations that I had had with Major Earle. 
At the time I kncAV nothing about this 4.30 order. 

0,. Yon merely received this Avritten and verbal order directing an attack in 
succession 

A. Yes; and w’hen Colonel Locke came to me with that order I was engaged 


110 


in getting niy men up to the front, and I supposed it was rather supplementary 
to tlie written order, and perhaps to expedite the movement. After this inves¬ 
tigation was begun I tried very hard to recollect who brought me that written 
order to attack with four regiments, and until I conversed with Major Earle and 
sjiw the letter of his I could not fix it. But upon talking with him I am very 
well satisfied now that he did bring the order, and'that Colonel Locke’s order 
referred to the 4.30 p. m. order. 

Q. Colonel Locke’s order that he describes as being for you to attack with your 
division ? 

A. As Colonel Locke states in his testimony on page 223. I can not speak 
positively, but, from conversation with Major Earle and my recollection, I have 
no doubt that it is so. 

% 

There is the evidence of his own staff officer showing that he saw him 
receive the order, and that he immediately sent an order to Morell to 
attack, and so soon as he gave the order for Morell to attack then he 
dispatched a written order to Morell directing him not to attack, but 
to remain in statu quo all night. 

Dispatches that passed between Porter and General Morell on the 
29th of August, 1862, while Morell occupied the position mentioned 
by him in his testimony, and while Porter was two and one-half miles 
back at Bethlehem chapel: 

DISPATCHES BETWEEN PORTER AND MORELL. 

August 29, 1862. 

General Morell : Push over to the aid of Sigel and strike in his rear. If you 
reach a road up which King is moving and he has got ahead of you, let him pass, 
but see if you can not giv<i help to Sigel. If you find him retiring, move back 
toward Manassas, and should nece.ssity require it, and you do not hear from me, 
push to Centreville. If you find the direct road filled, take the one via Union 
Mills, which is to the right as you return. 

F'. J. PORTER, Major-General. 

Look to the points of the compass for Manassas. 


Gener.vl Morell: Hold on, if you can, to your present place. What is pass¬ 
ing? 

F. J. PORTER. 


General: Colonel Marshall reports that two batteries have come down in the 
woods on our right tow.ard the railroad, and two regiments of infantry on the 
road. If this be so, it will be hot here in the morning. 

GEO. W. MORELL, Major-General. 

Indorsed as follow.s: 

INIove the infantry and everything behind the crest, and conceal the guns. We 
must hold that place and make it too hot for them. Come the same game over 
them they do over us, and get your men out of sight. 

F. J. PORTER. 


General Porter: I can move everything out of sight except Hazlett’s bat¬ 
tery. Griffin is supporting it, and is on its right, principally in the pine bushes. 
The other batteries and brigades are retired out of sight. Is this what you mean 
by everything? 

GEO. W. MORELL, Major-General. 

Indorsed as follows: 

General Morell : I think you can move Hazlett’s, or the most of it, and post 
him in the bushes with the others so as to deceive. I would get everything if 
possible in ambuscade. All goes well with the other troops. 

« _ F. J. P. 

Gener.^l Morell : Tell me what is passing, quickly. If the enemy is coming, 
hold to him, and I will come up. Post your men to repulse him. 

F. J. PORTER, Major-General. 

General Porter : Colonel Marshall reports a movement in front of his left. I 
think we had better retire. No infantry in sight, and I am continuing the move¬ 
ment. Stay where you are, to aid me if necessary. 


MORELL. 



Ill 


Genekal Morell : I have all within reach of you. I wish to give the enemy 
a good shelling without wasting ammunition, and push atthe same time a party 
over to see what is going on. We can not retire while McDowell holds his own. 

F. J. P. 

August 29. 

General Morell : I wish you to push up two regiments supported by two 
others, preceded by skirmishers, the regiments at intervals of two hundred yards, 
and attack the section of artillery opposed to you. The battle works well on our 
right, and the enemy are said to be retiring up the pike. Give the enemy a good 
shelling as our troops advance. 

F. J. PORTER, 
Major-General Comnianding. 


General Morell: Put your men in position to remain during the night, and 
have out your pickets. Put them so that they will be in a position to resist any¬ 
thing. I am about a mile from you. McDowell says all goes well, and we are 
getting the best of the fight. I wish you would .send me a dozen men from the 
cavalry. Keep me informed. Troops are passing up to Gainesville, pushing the 
enemy. Ricketts has gone; also King. 

F. J. PORTER, Major-General. 
warren’s note to general SYKES. 

5 h. 45 m. p. M., Aug. 29, ’62. 

General Sykes: I received an order from Mr. Cutting to advance and sup¬ 
port Morell. I faced about and did so. I soon met Griffin’s brigade, withdraw'- 
ing, by order of General Morell, who was not pushed out, but returning. I faced 
about and marched back two hundred yards or so. 1 met then an orderly from 
General Porter to General Morell, saying he must push on and i)ress the enemy; 
that all was going well for us, and he was returning. Griffin then faced about; 
and I am following him to support General Moi'ell, as ordered. None of the bat¬ 
teries are closed up to me. 

Respectfully, G. K. WARREN. 

It was denied that General Sturgis was under Porter’s orders ; here 
is the evidence : 

General Sturgis: Please put your command in motion to follow Sykes as 
soon as he starts. If you know of any other troops who are to join me, I wish 
you to send them notice to follow you. 

We march as soon as we can see. 

F. J. PORTER, Major-General. 
porter’s dispatches to m’dowell and king. 

General McDowell or King : 

I have been wandering over the woods, and failed to get a communication 
to you. Tell how matters go with you. The enemy is in strong force in front 
of me, and I wish to know your design for to-night. If left to me, I shall have 
to retire for food and water, which 1 can not get here. How goes the battle? 
It seems to go to our rear. The enemy are getting to our left, 

F. J. PORTER, 
Major-General Volunteers. 


General McDowell : Failed in getting Morell over to you. After wandering 
about the woods for a time I withdrew him, and while doing .so artillery opened 
upon us. The fire of the enemy having advanced and ours retired, I have de¬ 
termined to withdraw to Manassas. 1 have attempted to communicate with 
McDowell and C’.gel, but my messengers have run into the enemy. They have 
gathered artillery and cavalry and infantry and the advancing masses of dust 
.show the enemy coming in force. lam now going to the head of the column to 
see what is passing and how aflairs are going, and I will communicate with you. 
Had you not better send your train back? 

F. J. PORTER, Major-General. 

August 29,1862. 

Generals McDowell and King: I found it impossible to communicate by 
crossing the woods to Groveton. The enemy are in strong force on this road, 
and as they appear to have driven our forces back, the firing of the enemy having 
advanced and ours retired, I have determined to withdraw to ISIanassas. I have 
attempted to communicate with McDowell and Sigel, but my messengers have 
run into the enemy. They have gathered artillery and cavalry and infantry, 
and the advancing masses of dust show the enemy coming in force. 

I am now going to the head of the column to see what is passing and how af- 


112 


fairs are going. Had you not better send your train back? I will communicate 
with you. 

F. J. PORTER, Major-General. 

I desire to call attention to the fact that none of the communications 
to Morell, McDowell, and King, or any other officer, by Porter, has the 
time of sending or receiving the same marked on that day—a very un¬ 
usual and unmilitary proceeding. 

DISPATCH OP GENERAL BUFORD TO GENERAL RICKETTS. 

Headquartkrs Cavalry Brigade —9:30 a. m. 

Geni'.ual Ricketts: Seventeen regiments, one battery, and five hundred cav¬ 
alry pa.Hsed through Gainesville three-quarters of an hour ago on the Centre- 
ville road. I think this division should join our forces now engaged at once. 
Please forward this. 

JOHN BUFORD, Brigadier-General, 


o 


N 


Tlie Whisky Tax, 


SPEECH 

OF 

IION. JOHN D. LONG, 

OF MASSACHUSETTS, 

In the House of KepresentatiyeSj 


Tuesday, March 25, 1884. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5265) to extend the time for the 
payment of the tax on distilled spirits now in wareliouse— 

Mr. LONG said: 

Mr. Chairman : As I may possibly take more time than thirty min- 
iites, and as I am entitled under an arrangement alretidy made to suc¬ 
ceed the next speaker, I will ask permission if necessary to overrun that 
time a little and will give an equal amount to the gentleman who shall 
follow me. 

I think, sir, that I am in similar case—if I knew more Latin I should 
probably say ‘ ‘ in consimili casu ’ ’—with many members upon this floor 
who pretend to no such thorough and special knowledge of this subject 
as is possessed by the distinguished gentleman who has just taken his 
seat, but are called upon to determine their line of action upon general 
information and upon such facts and statements as have thus far been 
laid before them by those who have already spoken. 

I am sure that there are many who, if they were to speak at all, would 
speak, as I do, more to obtain information than to convey it, and less to 
make impressions than to have their own confirmed or corrected. In 
other words, we are feeling our way. I think we may claim, however, 
that we approach the subject with no indirection, and that we resent a 
little the imputation, so far as it includes us, that we are governed in our 
jirdgraent either by sentimental considerations on the one hand or a 
desire on the other to subordinate this present, practical issue to the 
ulterior question of tariff reform or tariff protection. I think too that 
I caught in the remarks of one gentleman on the other side of the 
House who spoke on Saturday last, although I do not find them in the 
Record, the reproachful term “temperance crank.” I know that I 
have read in the reports or have heard a reference to “the fanaticisms 




2 


of prohibitionists. ’ ’ The eloquent gentleman from Maryland [ Mr. Find¬ 
lay] also took occasion to make a special reference to any who allow 
themselves in this matter of a tax to regard the question of its relation 
to the evil and the horror of intemperance. For one, Mr. Chairman, I 
do not care to be put in the category of those who can not consider a 
question upon its merits; and that I may say just that, is my apology 
for saying anything at all. And, sir, when I recall the course of this de¬ 
bate; when I remember that at the very outset it was intimated in the 
Commissioner’s letter thatif the commodity in question wentunderany 
other name than that of whisky there would be no issue; when I 
remember that it is the friends of this bill who first threw’ into the dis¬ 
cussion the subject of temperance under the guise of averting that sub¬ 
ject; and when I find Irom the beginning to the end an extreme sensi¬ 
tiveness on their part lest the moral aspect of the case shall affect its 
determination, I begin to suspect that the moral element is one that can 
not be left out of this case, as it ought not to be left out of any topic of 
legislation. But, sir, whatever my views upon this question of prohibi¬ 
tion or of the tariff may be, of one thing I am sure, and that is that I can 
consider this question without prejudice derived from either source and 
in its light as a business and legislative matter. 

Mr. Chairman, I confess that when I approached this subject I was 
inclined favorably to the bill. It seemed to me that its tendency was 
to correct a discrimination against whisky which did not exist against 
any other subject of taxation. I w’as struck with the earnest and in¬ 
cisive argument of the gentleman from Arkansas, and wdth the em¬ 
phasis with which he insisted upon the special injustice done to this 
one item. It began to dawn upon me, however, that his argument was 
proving too much. The query arose, if there is such gross and special 
singling out of one commodity for excessive and unjust burden, why 
did such an enormity enter into the mind or secure the sanction of a 
former Legislature? Injustice is not often gratuitously done. When 
a law is made some good reason is at least supposed to underlie it. So 
I make a further inquiry, and I find the case has another side an 1 is in 
harmony with our system of taxation and not in antagonism to it. I 
find that the effect of this proposed bill is not to remove a discrimina¬ 
tion, but to make one by giving whisky for the payment of the tax on 
it a longer term from the date of its production than any other com¬ 
modity has in fact and in practice. In looking, for instance, at the law 
concerning the importation of foreign merchandise, I find that the sys¬ 
tem is less favorable to imports than the system now’ so harshly criti¬ 
cised is to whisky. For with reference to whisky the law is, as I 
understand that the tax may be naid at any time wdthin three years 
from its warehousing, and paid not only without interest but with an 
allowance for leakage so generous and large that that is itself a source of 
profit. On the other hand, with reference to imported merchandise the 
law is that the tax must be paid within one year. It may be paid within 
two years more; but if it overrun the one year a single day there is an 
increase charged of 10 per cent., and if not paid within the full three 
years the merchandise is confiscated and sold. 

But we are asked to consider other articles of domestic production as 
more germane to this issue. Well, here we find that the law with re¬ 
gard to fermented liquor and tobacco is that the tax is, I admit, payable 
only when the product is sold for consumption. That does seem at first 
to be a diflerence and a discrimination, as has been charged, from the 


/ 


3 


case of whisky on which the tax is payable within three years from its 
warehousing whether sold for consumption or not. But here again I 
find that the law can be vindicated, that the law is founded in practical 
common sense. I find again that this seeming difference or discrimin¬ 
ation is not gratuitous, that it is not unreasonable, that it is not in fact 
substantial discrimination. What is the reason ? Let us look into the 
rationale. Beer and tobacco deteriorate by age. The whole tendency of 
the natural law of self-interest—and as practical legislators we always 
reckon on natural laws—the whole tendency of the law of self-interest 
urges the owners of beer and tobacco to sell them for consumption as 
early as possible. Every day’s delay diminishes their value; every day’s 
delay adds to the burden of interest in carrying them in stock. Leg¬ 
islative wisdom therefore says that the public interest in the tax on beer 
and tobacco is fully protected by collecting it when they enter into con¬ 
sumption. 

Mr. WILLIS. Suppose, Governor, they find no consumer? 

Mr. LONG. But they do. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WILLIS. In this case they do not. 

Mr. LONG. But take whisky—I mean, take it for the purpose of 
argument. [Laughter. ] Unlike a member of Congress, the older it is, 
the more valuable [laughter]; age is its necessity and its crown. The 
increase in the value of whisky by age neutralizes any loss of interest on 
the investment, and is really an element of profit. In the case of whisky, 
differing from the case of beer and tobacco, the whole tendency of 
this natural law of self-interest is to delay its sale for consumption. 

There are, therefore, as you see, two reasons why the collection of the 
tax on whisky should not be left, as in the case of beer and tobacco, 
until the article goes into consumption. The first is, this tax is a tax 
on production. Tobacco and beer and intoxicating liquors are harmful 
and injurious we all agree. They are not the favorites of wise states¬ 
manship. They are not conducive to the public welfare. A tax on 
their production is a tax on their accumulation, just as a bounty on 
their production would be a premium for it. The tax, therefore, should 
be collected at or reasonably near the time of production and as an in¬ 
cident to it. To effect that obj ect no statute is necessary, as I have shown, 
in the case of beer and tobacco, because the natural law secures their 
early sale and therefore early taxation—taxation at the time and as an 
incident of production. But as to whisky the statute is necessary, and 
it is necessary not to enforce a discrimination, but to prevent discrimina¬ 
tion by insuring this same result of early taxation. This whisky law, 
then, which has been assailed as being so unreasonable and discriminat¬ 
ing, is shown to be founded entirely on reason and entirely in harmony 
with our system. 

But the second reason is the main one, because it is the practical 
reason. It is practical experience which at oncesuggested and demon¬ 
strated the wisdom of the present law, or rather of what the present law 
intended. It is worth while to look into the history of this matter for a 
moment for our information. Formerly the tax on whisky, like that on 
beer and tobacco, was collected at the time of consumption. But under 
this same natural law of which I have spoken of, under the inducement 
to store whiskies in warehouses for a term of years in order to get the in¬ 
creased value of their aging, there accumulated not only whisky but 
there accumulated also the opportunities, temptations, and incidents of 7 
a system of fraud. It broke out, as you remember, in plague spots that 


( 


4 


were a national disgrace and loss, and whicli we blush to remember. 
Great stores of this commodity liable to taxation yet reluctant to meet 
it, growing more valuable the longer they escaped it, gathering around 
them an army of spies and subordinates, and constituting an interest 
which could furnish vast sums for a corruption fund—all this necessi¬ 
tated, not as a piece of gratuitous injustice, not as a jjiece of special 
discrimination, but as a measure of wise legislation, the enactment of 
a law, the law which in 1868 required the tax to be paid substantially 
at the time of production; or in other words, in order to give reasona¬ 
ble time, within one year. 

Therefore I say that the law is reasonable; and the only question I 
have as to its merit is that perhaps it did not go far enough and make 
the limit for the payment of the tax less than a year and bring it, as I 
think one gentleman from Mississippi suggested, down to the imme¬ 
diate time of production. For what was the result even of the law of 
1868? The accumulation of whisky still went on, and it went on to 
such an extent that in 1878 an earnest appeal was made to Congress to 
extend the limit. It was said then, as it is said now that relief must 
be granted; that otherwise ruin, panic, and bankruptcy would follow; 
and that if relief were granted—remember this—the evil would not 
occur again; the burned child would dread the lire too much. And the 
extension was granted in 1878 for one year, in 1879 for three years; but 
even then not without protest. It was argued by Garfield, I think, and 
by others that relief would only .stimulate production; that each year 
would see not a reduction but an increase of the product; and that at 
the end of three years a still greater outcry would be made lor another 
extension and be backed by a still greater monopoly. Every prediction 
then made has proved true. Look at the figures. 

The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Blount] in his admirable speech 
tells us that the production of whisky in 1879, the first year alter the 
extension was granted, was 71,000,000 of gallons, in 1880 it was 90,- 
000,000 of gallons, and in 1881 it was 117,000,000 of gallons. Could 
you have a more striking fulfillment of the prophecy of increase of pro¬ 
duction? And not only was that prophecy fulfilled but there was also 
fulfilled the prophecy that an application would again be made for an 
extension when the three years then granted were up. In 1882 an 
appeal for another extension came, and it was refused. The result was 
good. No national calamity or panic or loss followed. The production 
fell off at once on that refusal. The production, which in 1881 had been 
117,000,000 of gallons, in 1882 was only 105,000,000 of gallons, and in 
1883 it came down to 74,000,000 of gallons. 

Mr. Chairman, these figures conclude the whole case. In the light of 
them what are we, as sensible men, called upon to do ? The case resolves 
itself almost into a mathematical demonstration. The three years’ ex- 
ten.sion panted in 1878 increased the evil; the refusal to grant the ex¬ 
tension in 1882 lessened it. Which example, which precedent are we 
going to follow? As the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Reed] puts it, 
if the extension of 1878 and 1879 increased production from 71,000,000 
of gallons to 117,000,000 of gallons, how much would the extension 
asked this year increase the production ? And I add, if the refusal 
of 1882 brought down the production from 117,000,000 of gallons to 
74,000,000 of gallons, how much will a refusal now reduce the produc¬ 
tion ? 

What is the use to talk in the view of this experience and these fig- 


5 


ures? I do not blame the parties in interest for urging this matter. 
The individual in present necessity always wants present relief. His 
personal interest blinds him, as it is liable to blind every man, to the 
public interest, and sometimes to his own. I believe the gentleman 
from Kentucky [Mr. Willis] is speaking here for his constituents with 
a most sincere good faith and the most thorough conviction. But pass 
this bill and extend this time, and when the limit is reached he will 
find that instead of 70,000,000 of gallons on hand in storehouses as now, 
and instead of $66,000,000 of taxes unpaid, the amount will be increased 
from 25 to 50 per cent. The gentleman admits this result when he 
suggests that if this bill is passed the relief given the farmers will in¬ 
crease the sale of corn for distillation. If it be true, therefore, that the 
passage of this bill will bring increased production and an increase of 
the evil, then when the extension of time we are now asked to give shall 
have passed there will again come with redoubled force the cry for re¬ 
lief. More than likely the 4 J per cent, interest, guaranteed to the Gov¬ 
ernment by this bill, will in the mean time have been legislated off, and 
even that poor sop be denied. The monopoly will then have still greater 
interests in peril and a stHl greater fund assessed to back it. More banks 
will then be interested and more influences invoked upon this Cham¬ 
ber. Then indeed will there be so much at stake that possibly ruin and 
bankruptcy and loss may follow if relief be not granted. And let me 
tell gentlemen that then the question will be not when the tax shall 
be paid, but whether it shall be paid at all. This is not a question of 
good nature; it is not a question of personal relief. If it were it would 
be of less consequence. It is a question of grave public policy and of 
farreaching effect on the public welfare. 

I make two conditional admissions. If it were true that in case of 
the rejection of this bill there would be ruin and panic and bank¬ 
ruptcy, then, whoever is at fault, it would be a very strong argument. 
But let ,us look at that matter. First, make allowance for the ex¬ 
travagance of argument and the zeal of advocacy. Second, and it is 
conclusive, remember that no such results followed the refusal to grant 
relief in 1882. Third, if relief is necessary, why should not the par¬ 
ties themselves furnish it? The whole amount of the $66 000 000 of 
taxes which are unpaid is not due to-day. As I understand, it is 
' distributed over the next three years. If that is so, then it amounts to 
some $22,000,000 a year, and that twenty-two millions distributing 
itself along over the whole year. Why do not these parties themselves 
take care of the amount ? It is indeed urged that the Government doCs 
not need this tax; that its coffers are already running over. Ah ! is it 
admitted on the other hand that, if the Government did need it, this re¬ 
quest would not be made ? If so, then it would still be true that the 
danger of panic and ruin would still be just as great then as now. The 
fact is, and we all know it, that this resort is made to the Government 
rather than to anybody else because it is thought to be the easiest way 
out of a difficulty. 

Suppose the parties in interest could not look to the Government. 
What would they do? They would look elsewhere, just as they will 
now if we refuse to pass this bill. What will be the result of its re¬ 
jection? The result will be wholesome. The production of whisky 
will be stayed, just as the refusal to pass a similar measure in 1882 
sta^^ed and reduced it. The present stock will go its normal way. If 
it go out of the country, escaping taxation by export, the country will 


6 


bid it good riddance. If it remain, the Government will get its tax 
and go on paying its debts; and it needs every dollar it can get for 
that purpose. 

But you ask, how will those engaged in this interest raise the money 
required? Tlie amount at stake is, as the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Hepburn] said, a mere bagatelle ($22,000,000 a year distributed along 
the whole period). In comparison with the amount of capital in this 
country seeking investment, and constituting the resources of our banks 
and loaning institutions, it is a small sum. I submit that if the Gov¬ 
ernment can afford to leave this money on interest at 4} per cent, (which 
is not one of its functions, and those who have regard for the Constitu¬ 
tion should remember this), then certainly other institutions whose 
function it is to loan money will be glad to secure so good a loan at so 
good a rate. They can have exactly the same security that the Govern¬ 
ment has. They can have the same whisky, three-fourths of the value 
of which is in the tax. They can demand the same bonds which the 
Government demands. Why, sir, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Hep¬ 
burn] tells me computation shows that the allowance by the Govern¬ 
ment for the one item of leakage is so generous and so profitable that 
it alone would secure and pay the interest on the loan. 

Mr. WILLIS. That is not the fact. 

Mr. LONG. Possibly not. I state it upon the authority of the gen¬ 
tleman from Iowa. 

But certainly if the loan is good, other institutions will gladly take it. 
If it is not good, then the Government, charged with the trust of the 
people’s money, would be criminal to leave $66,000,000 of it at longer 
risk. Here is a point which should not be overlooked. Let me put it 
in this way: To-day the Government has at risk in this whisky business, 
but not now payable, $66,000,000 of the people’s money—theirs bylaw, 
theirs by the act of the whisky producers themselves, who manufactured 
this product, knowing the law and estopped to plead ignorance of it. 
And, I say, if the am.ount is secure to the Government it will be equally 
secure for any other who may lend it. If it is not secure, it should be 
collected just as soon as the law will permit. For if a crash is to come, 
if this whisky shall decline in price and not be sufficient to secure this 
debt or tax, I ask any practical man of what value will be the bonds ? 
How many of the sureties will be responsible and good in case of such 
a crash, and what demand will Congress not be subjected to to favorand 
relieve even those who are responsible and good? For it will then be 
said, and said with a great show of ju.-^tice, that Congress itself might 
have collected this tax, but by delay and extension encouraged the finan¬ 
cial avalanche. 

But perhaps you say that this loan can not practically be obtained 
from the capital of the country, because the creditor knows that, if he 
should demand its payment at any time, the price of whisky might be 
reduced to a song by its sacrifice, and so payment made impossible. 
But that depends. It depends entirely upon the purpose with which 
this bill is pressed and the probable action of the parties who are inter¬ 
ested in it. If this bill is not sought with the sure and honest purpose 
of staying production—if this bill should, as I believe it will (and as 
was the case before) stimulate production, and thereby glut the market 
still more and reduce the price by its surplus—then to pass the bill 
would certainly be to promote the very evils from which relief is 
sought. 


7 


On the other hand, if there is an honest purpose to stay production 
till the present excessive supply is distributed and consumed in the 
ordinary channels, that result can be obtained by the voluntary act of 
the parties themselves and without any bill. The passage of this bill 
would not aid in that result. Any capitalist loaning the money and 
tiiking the amount olf the hands of the Government would be secure 
with things j ust as they are. So that, taking either horn of the dilemma, 
there is no justification for the bill. If, however, you still say the dan¬ 
ger is so great and the security so frail that no such risk ought to be 
put upon the capital of the country under any circumstances, then I 
answer—and the common sense of the House will sustain me in saying— 
that the time has come to face the question of the repeal of the tax it¬ 
self and not leave the Government counting as an asset something which 
has no value. Disguise it as you. may, the real question before us is 
not a temporary question of extension, it is a question of repeal. 

There is only one other ground on which, if it existed, I should be 
perfectly ready to grant this relief, and that is, if anybody in this 
country had been misled or wronged by the action of the Government. 
But as has been so often and so conclusively shown, fair warning was 
given in 1878. Producers, distillers, bankers, speculators, all had their 
eyes wide open to the risk they ran. They have taken their chances 
as absolutely as the gambler who sits down at the card-table. There 
has been in this matter an element of risks in futures that is neither 
altogether deserving nor innocent. This has grown into a gigantic in¬ 
terest of speculation that comes with poor grace to ask Congress to help 
it out of its own folly. It is a monopoly which, it is said, has swal¬ 
lowed up the smaller whisky interests; and while I should deplore the 
possibility, if it existed, of ruin or bankruptcy anywhere, I believe 
that sound, honest public policy requires the reduction and dissipation 
of this huge cancer into the ordinary tissues of wholesome business 
vitality. 

I hear it said that this interest has paid a thousand millions into the 
public Treasury; that it has supported our armies; that it has paid our 
debts; that it has maintained our Government. But, sir, it has not 
paid one cent. Whisky has never paid a dollar. The people it is who 
out of the earnings of their toil have paid millions for it and its curses. 
If a thousand million dollars have gone into the public Treasury, whisky 
has been only the rotten bridge over which it has passed. Contributed 
to the i^ublic welfare ! It is rather the dynamite of modern civilization; 
and when you reckon, as you do, the billions by which you measure its 
production and cost, you are reckoning not any addition to the public 
welfare, but you are reckoning the extent of the public and national 
ruin, waste, and poverty. There you may look for loss, and panic, and 
bankruptcy, and not to that bagatelle of a few million dollars that is 
about to be transferred from the books of the Government to the books 
of pHvate lenders. 

The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Findlay] waxed eloquent, and 
no man can be more so, when he called this commodity a very ‘ ‘ hell 
broth ” of woe, and asked if we were prepared to pour it broadcast over 
the land, instead of confining it in the receptacle of the warehouses of 
the nation. He knows better. He is not deluded with the notion that 
our warehouses are built and stored with whisky for the pleasure of its 
accumulation or with the benevolent big bandana handkerchief purpose 
of keeping it from public use and public consumption. He knows that 


8 


to pass this bill will indeed pile it up in those warehouses, but will pile 
it up only to be poured out a few years later—and the longer delay the 
more abundantly—in a deluge of ruin and madness over the land. 

I, too, like him, find my guide not in any noisy clamor, not in any 
false outcry of the popular voice, but in my own conscience and judg¬ 
ment. And these tell me, as a matter of sound public policy, of recent 
historical experience, of present justice, of the true interest even of the 
parties appellant, of honest fulfillment of obligation and law, of states¬ 
manlike prevention of greater impending evils, and of arresting, even 
at some possible cost to a few, a disease which, by delay, will only grow 
worse in its general calamity—these unite and tell me that it is my 
duty, even aside from all questions of domestic good morals, to vote 
against this bill. [Great applause. ] 


O 


OREGON LAND-GRANT RAILROAD. 



“I believe in the spade and an acre of good ground. Who so cuts a straight 
path to his own bread, by the help of God in the sun and rain and sprouting of the 
grain, seems to me to be an universal workman. lie solves the problem of life, 
not for one, but for all men of sound body .”—Emerson to Carlisle, March 18, 1840. 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON. CHARLKS B. LORE, 

% « 

OW 


IN THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


Tuesday, June 3 , 1884 . 


I 


WASHINGTON. 

1884 . 







SPEECH 


OF 

HON. CHARLES B. LORE. 


The House having under consideration the bill (H. R. 181) to declare the for¬ 
feiture of certain lands granted to aid in the construction of a railroad in Oregon 
and to enforce the same by judicial proceedings— 

Mr. LORE said: 

Mr. Speaker: On May 4, 1870, the Congress of the United States 
granted to the Oregon Central Railroad Company public lands in the 
State of Oregon estimated at 1,500,000 acres, to aid in constructing a 
railroad and telegraph line ‘ ‘ from Portland to Astoria, and from a suita¬ 
ble point of junction near Forest Grove to the Yamhill River, near Mc¬ 
Minnville, in the State of Oregon.” 

The grant included the usual right of way, necessary lands for de¬ 
pots, side-tracks, &c., also the alternate sections, designated by odd 
numbers, nearest said road, to the amount of ten sections per mile on 
each side of the road, with the usual provisions for indemnity if the 
Government should dispose of the odd sections which otherwise would 
have passed to the company. 

The act also provided that whenever sections of twenty or more con¬ 
secutive miles of the road and telegraph line should be completed, 
properly constructed, and equipped, the Secretary of the Interior, after 
examination, should ^use patents to issue to the company for so much 
of the granted lands as should be adjacent to and coterminous with the 
completed sections. 

Section 6 is as follows: 

And he it further enacted, That the said company shall file with the Secretary 
of the Interior its assent to this act within one year from the time of its passage; 
and the foregoing grant is upon condition that said company shall complete a 
section of twenty or more miles of said railroad and telegraph within two years, 
and the entire railroad and telegraph within six years from said date. 

Portland is distant from Astoria, inland, one hundred and seventeen 
miles. From Forest Grove to the Yamhill River, near McMinnsville, 
is twenty-seven and a half miles, making the whole length of the road 
and its branch one hundred and forty-four and a half miles. 

Before the expiration of the six years named in the act making the 
grant, the company constructed a line of road from Portland west- 
wardly toward Forest Grove about twenty miles, and thence south¬ 
wardly to the Yamhill River, near McMinnsville, about twenty-seven 
and a half miles; in all, forty-seven and a half miles of constructed road 
practically on the line of the road proposed in the grant. 

Twenty miles of the completed road from Portland to Forest Grove 
are on the main stem from Portland to Astoria, the remaining twenty- 
seven and one-half miles of completed road are on the branch leading 
from Forest Grove to McMinnsville. 

The bill now before the House proposes to revoke the grant of land. 


4 


because the company has failed to perform the condition upon which 
it was made, having refused to build the remaining ninety-seven miles 
of road. 

It will be observed that Astoria is in the extreme northwest corner 
of Oregon, at the mouth of the Columbia River, with a large body of 
unsettled land between it and the Williamette Valley in the south, 
hemmed in on the west by the coast range of mountains and on the 
east by the range separating it from the Columbia River, 

To open up this land to settlement and improvement by means of a 
trunk line from Portland to Astoria, with a branch to McMinnsville, 
was the intent of the grant. This purpose is somewhat apparent in 
the Avords of the original grant, but still, more from the debate in the 
two Houses of Congress at the date of the grant in May, 1870, 

Mr. Smith, the Representative from Oregon in the Forty-first Con¬ 
gress, in discussing the act making the grant of land, April 29, 1870, 
in this House, said he had introduced a bill to provide for constructing 
a road the whole length of the valley in a southerly direction (not in 
the direction of Astoria), and hoped to have passed it in that shape; 
that the committee failed to report in favor of an extension of this 
branch southerly, and he accepted their report. That— 

The Willamette Valley, which contains two-thirds of the population of the 
whole of Oregon, has no outlet to the sea bvit by the Columbia River. That 
river flow's across the north end of the Willamette Valley. On the west, be- 
tw'een that valley and the sea, a mountain range extends along the whole 
length; through this range of mountains to the mouth of the river w'e have no 
road of any kind; during the winter.the river is often frozen, and w'e are then 
entirely cut otf from all communication with the outside world. We have not 
a w'agon-road, w'e have not a foot-path, we have not any means by w'hich w’e 
can communicate with the sea w'hen the Columbia River is frozen over. We 
want this road to give us an outlet to the sea at all seasons, and w'e want to open 
up this pass w'e have found through the mountains to the settlement. 

Mr. Williams, the Senator from Oregon, said in the United States 
Senate February 2, 1870: 

For twenty or thirty miles it (the proposed railroad) runs through a thickly 
settled country, the Willamette Valley, wdiere nearly all the lands are taken 
and occupied by settlers; then it strikes the coast range mountains. In these 
mountains there are lands that are valuable or would be valuable if persons 
settling upon them could have any access to market, but it is impossible for men 
to go upon these lands and cut dow'ii the timber and cultivate them and raise 
enough to pay for taking w'hat they raise to market. It is to open up that 
country that this grant is asked. 

And again, February 19, 1870, in reply to a question by Mr. Davis, 
he said: 

The road is about one hundred miles in length, the branch about thirty miles. 

Again the attorney of the company in his brief said on this point: 

The line of road in aid of the construction of w'hich this grant w'as made, 
though short is one of vital interest to the people of Oregon, especially those 
of Northern Oregon, and it is only by the completion of the ninety-seven miles 
of uncompleted road that the vast interests, commercial, militarv, and other¬ 
wise now' rapidly developing at Astoria, near the mouth of the Columbia, can 
be brought into communication by rail with the great transcontinental road. 

Astoria, the mouth of the Columbia; the military forts of Stevens and Canby ; 
hedged in as they are on the Washington Territory side by almost impassable 
ranges of mountains, find their only hope of obtaining rail connection with the 
tran-scontinental line in the completion of this road. And it was this anoma¬ 
lous condition of affairs in connection with the great co.st of the construction of 
this road, and the commercial and military necessities of the case, that led Con¬ 
gress, in 1870, to regard the building of this line as a national underta:king, and 
hence this grant in aid of its construction. 

It is, therefore, clearly demonstrated that to open up the country from 
Portland to Astoria by a main stem of railroad connecting the two was 




5 


the primary, if not the only, object Congress had in view in making the 
grant. Astoria, at the mouth of theColuml)ia, was the objective point. 
McMinnville was the terminus of a branch only, to connect with the 
main stem at Forest Grove. It is obvious, therefore, not only that 
the company accepted the grant on condition to complete the road in 
six years, but also on condition to carry out the purpose of the grant, 
to connect Astoria with Portland and aid in development of the coun¬ 
try on the main stem. Now, let us see how the company has complied 
with this condition. 

Tlie company completed the twenty miles of road from Portland to 
Forest Grove in three years, the time named in the grant. From this 
point, instead of extending the road along the main line toward Astoria 
in the northwest, the company turned southward on the branch, and in 
the next three years built twenty-seven and one-half miles to McMinn¬ 
ville, and all the means and resources of the company have been ex¬ 
pended in that direction, in the extension of the southerly branch, 
exactly the opposite direction from that named in the grant. The 
control of the road passed first to the Oregon and California Railroad 
Company, then in 1881 to Henry Villard, the president of the Northern 
Pacific, who had previously secured control of all lines of railroad trans¬ 
portation in Oregon. From 1870 to 1883 repeated promises were made 
to the citizens of Astoria that the road would be built to that city in 
compliance with the grant of land. Whether these were intentionally 
delusive or not does not appear. That they were delusive in fact is 
painfully apparent. 

In a letter of September 13,1883, Mr. Henry Villard, the president of 
this road, to the Astoria Chamber of Commerce, distinctly repudiates 
the conditions of the grant, and uses this language: 

I regret to say that the estimates of the cost of the line in question (ninety- 
seven miles of unfinished main stem to Astoria) now before me are so large that 
it will be impossible for the Oregon and Transcontinental Company, as lessee 
of the Oregon and California Railroad Company, to undertake its construction. 
We must, therefore, abandon the project. 

For thirteen years Astoria had been sitting by the sea in the North¬ 
west waiting the coming of the promised relief, and deluded by false 
promises only to be told at the end of that time that the project must 
be abandoned. This company not only refused to build the road itself, 
in violation of its contract, but by possession of the granted land pre¬ 
vented others from building the same. 

The Chamber of Commerce of the city of Astoria, in their memorial 
to this Congress asking the forfeiture of all the lands granted to the 
company, says: 

That said grant w'as made on express condition that said railroad should be 
completed in six years fr6m said date (May 4, 1870), and that said time expired 
more than seven years ago. 

That portion of the railroad more easily constructed between Portland and 
McMinnville was built within the specified time, but since that time no part of 
the main line between Forest Grove and Astoria has been built, nor is it in proc¬ 
ess of construction. 

That the president of the company now holding the grant has publicly de - 
dared his unwillingness to build the road. 

We would further represent that the lands of this company are rich in timber, 
iron, and coal; that the cost of the proposed railroad is no excuse, and we firmly 
believe that the road would have been built many years ago if the grant had 
been held by persons whose interests were notagainstthe building of the road, 
and would be built now if the land grant were only declared forfeited. 

That the Oregon Central Railroad, built and to be built, is controlled by trans¬ 
fers and lease to the Oregon and Transcontinental Railroad Company, and the 
latter company is opposed to any extension of its system to Astoria. 

That the continuance of the grant is acting as a barrier to the settlement and de- 


0 


velopment of the country and its resources; and that it is also acting as a bar to 
the building of a railroad by any other company through the same section. 

Joseph Gaston, first president of the Oregon Central Railroad, under 
date of December 4, 1883, says to Congress: 

That the grant in the hands of its presentowners is an obstruction to the con¬ 
struction of a railroad to Astoria and the development of the country. For if 
the grant was forfeited the country would be at once rapidly settled, and other 
railroad companies would build a narrow-gauge railroad, if not a more expen¬ 
sive one. 

Memorials of over 2,000 citizens of Oregon, in the vicinity of the line, 
ask the forfeiture of the grant. 

Oregon newspapers of recent date say: 

Were the grant out of the way the fall of 1885 would see Astoria in railroad 
communication with the remainder of the country. The road must run through 
the country covered by the present grant, and while arrangements could and 
possibly would be made to allow the building of the line, yet nothing but the 
forfeiture of the grant would insure the best results desirable from the enter¬ 
prise. 

The member from Oregon [Mr. GeorCtE] on the floor of this House 
a few days since epitomized the reasons for the forfeiture of what he 
calls the unearned portions of the grant in the following forcible lan¬ 
guage : 

Recognizing that one section of the State immediately interested was restless 
on account of the non-completion of the road, the fact that a large section was 
tied up from settlement and development: the fact that the Chamber of Commerce 
of Astoria, an enterprising and progressive city, directly interested, memorial¬ 
ized Congress for a forfeiture; the fact that petitions for forfeiture wei-e pouring 
in from citizens of my State along the line of road and elsewhere; the fact that 
the president of the company had addressed a public letter to the Astoria Cham¬ 
ber of Commeree, saying that the company “must abandon the project;” the 
fact that the Legislature of the State at its last session memoralized Congress 
to forfeit the grant for reasons stated in the memorial; the fact that no one 
whom I have the honor to represent has ever expressed a wish to me to the 
contrary, I concluded to favor a forfeiture of the unearned part. It was with 
reluctance, however, 1 felt such must be the case. 

A stronger arraignment of the company for failure to meet the con¬ 
ditions of the grant could hardly be made, and yet the member from 
Oregon [Mr. George] contends with his accustomed force and earnest¬ 
ness that what he terms the portion of land earned by the company 
shall be excepted out of the forfeiture and secured to the company; 
that is, that the company may keep all the laud in the thickly settled 
portion of country from Portland to McMinnville, where the forty- 
seven and one-half miles of road has been completed by it at little cost, 
and forfeit only the wild and less valuable land Irom Forest Grove to 
Astoria, along the ninety-seven miles of road they have not touched. 

Can it be said in auy proper sense that the company has earned any 
of the land ? It could only so earn by meeting some of the conditions 
of the grant. What single condition has been met by this company ?. 

It is not seriously contended, as I understand, that the company has 
a legal right to any of the land granted, but that it has a strong equita¬ 
ble claim for the land coterminous with the two completed sections of 
the road, because there have l>eeu built twenty miles on the main line, 
from Portland to Forest Grove, and twenty-seven and one-half miles 
on the branch from Forest Grove to McMinnville, all of which is on 
the line of road prescribed in the grant; that therefore so much has 
been justly earned by the railroad company. 

This would be just if the part so built had in good faith been con¬ 
structed with the ultimate purpose of completing the road to Astoria, 
the end proposed by Congress; but if the forty-seven and one-half miles 
of road was so constructed to divert trade and development in another 


7 


direction, and has since been used to prevent the people of Astoria from 
obtaining railroad communication with the McMinnville Valley and the 
people along the line of the proposed road from an outlet to the sea at 
Astoria, as is distinctly stated by them, then the grant has been used 
to defeat the purpose Congress had in view and a great wrong and fraud 
has been perpetrated on Congress and the people of Oregon. 

To state the proposition in plain terms, the company obtains the grant 
of land from Congress upon the express terms that it would open a high¬ 
way through the wilderness from the Willamette Valley to Astoria; 
but after the land had been granted it not only refused to build the 
road itself but so used the trust property as to deter other corporations 
and individual capital from undertaking the enterprise. 

Such is the unequivocal declaration of the people of Astoria, of Mr. 
Gaston, the former president of the road, and the thousands of me¬ 
morialists who are on the lands, and whose views have been expressed 
in their demands for the revocation of the grant. They unitedly ask 
that all the lands shall be forfeited. 

With a modesty peculiar to corporations, the company claims to have 
earned the lands along the completed portions of its road, while disre¬ 
garding every condition of the trust. 

The people for whose immediate benefit the grant was made are a 
unit in demanding that the forfeiture shall be thorough and complete. 
The corporation stands alone in its demand for the land it claims to 
have earned, and with singular assurance asks it as the reward for vio¬ 
lating its trust. 

Well may it be characterized as the frontier line of corporate assur¬ 
ance. The demand of the peope of Oregon for the forfeiture of this 
grant has been emphasized by the whole people of the United States. 

In nothing is public sentiment so decided as in the demand that the 
public land shall be taken away from the corporations which either 
have not used or have abused the grants. 

In the last thirty-four years Congress has given lands with princely 
liberality to States and corporations for railroad purposes. 

The following table, gathered from the most reliable sources within 
my reach, shows all such grants from the first grant to the Illinois Cen¬ 
tral Railroad Company, September 20, 1850, to the present time, giv¬ 
ing the State and corporation to which the grant was made, the date of 
the act of Congress, and the estimated number of acres in each grant: 

Table showing gra7its of land to States to aid in the construction of rail¬ 
roads. 


State. 

Illinois. 

Mississippi... 
Alabama. 


Name of road. Date of act. 


Illinois Central and Mobile and Chi¬ 
cago. 

Mobile and Ohio. 

Vicksburg and Meridian. 

Mobile and Ohio River. 

Alabama and Florida. 

Selma, Rome and Dalton.| 

Coosa and Tennessee. 

Mobile and Girard. 

Alabama and Chattanooga. 

South and North Alabama.| 


Sept. 20,1850 

Sept. 20,1850 
Aug. 11,1856 
Sept. 20,1850 
May 17,1856 
June 3,1856 
May 23,1872 
June 3,1856 
June 3,1856 
April 10,1869 
June 3,1856 
Mar. 3,187] 


} 

} 


Acres. 


2,595,053 


1,004,640 
404,800 
230,400 
419,520 

481.920 

132,480 
840,880 

897.920 

576,000 





















8 


Table shouting grants of land to States, d'C. — Continued. 


State. Name of road. | Date of act. 


Florida 


Louisiana. 


Arkansas. 


Florida Railroad. 

Florida and Alabama. 

Pensacola and Georgia. 

Florida, Atlantic and Gulf Central. 

North Louisiana and Texas... 

New Orleans, Opelousas and Great f 

Western. 1 

f Saint Louis, Iron Mountain and J 

( Southern. ) 


Little Rock and Fort Smith 


Missouri. 


Iowa. 


Michigan. 


Wisconsin. 


Minnesota 


Hannibal and Saint Joseph. 

Pacific and Southwest Branch... 
Saint Louis and Iron Mountain. 
Saint Louis and Iron Mountain. 
Saint Louis and Southern. 


Burlington and Missouri River. 


Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific.. 


Cedar Rapids and Missouri River.| 

Iowa Falls and Sioux City. 

Dubuque and Sioux City.| 

Des Moines Valley.| 

Chicago, Milwaukee and Saint Paul ... 

McGregor and Missouri River. 

Sioux City and Saint Paul. 

Port Huron and Lake Michigan. 

Jackson, Lansing and Saginaw. 

Grand Rapids and Indiana. 

Marquette, Houghton and Onton¬ 
agon. 

Chicago and Northwestern. 

Chicago, Saint Paul and Minneapolis .. 
Saint Croix and Lake Superior Branch 
to Bayfield. 

Saint Croix and Lake Superior 
Branch to Bayfield. 


Chicago and Northwestern. 

Wisconsin Central. 

Wisconsin Railroad, Farm-Mortgage- 
Land Company. 

Saint Paul and Pacific. 

Western Railroad. 

Saint Paul, Minneapolis and Mani- ( 
toba. ( 

Minnesota Central. 

Winona and Saint Peter’s. 

Saint Paul and Sioux City. 

Lake Superior and Mississippi. 

Southern Minnesota.. 

Southern Minnesota Extension. 

Hastings and Dakota. 

Leavenworth, Lawrence and Galves¬ 
ton. 


May 17,1856 
May 17,1856 
May 17,1856 
May 17,1856 
June 3,1856 
June 3,1856 ) 
July 14,1877 J 
Feb. 9,1853 
July 28,1866 
May 6,1870 
Feb. 9,1853 
July 28,1866 
April 10,1869 
Mar. 8,1870 
June 10,1851 
.lunelO, 18.51 
Feb. 9,1853 
July 4,1866 
July 28,1866 
May 15,18-56 
June 2,1864 
Feb. 10,1866 
May 1.5,1856 
June 2,1864 
Jan, 31,1873 
May 15,1856 ( 
Jtme 2,1864 ) 
May 15,18.56 
June 2,1864 ! ) 
Mch. 2,1868 I 
Aug. 8, ! \ 

July 12,1862 ! / 
May 12,1864 I 
May 12,1864 ! 
May 12,1864 j 
.1 une 3,18.56 | 
June 3,1856 
June 3,18.56 
J une 3,18.56 
June 7,1864 
June 3,1856 ! 
Mch. 3,1865 I 
July 5,1862; 
June 3,18.56 | 
June 3,18.56 

1 

May 5,1864 j 
May 5,1864 ' 
IMay 5,1864 
June 3,1856 
May 5,1864 
June 3,18.56 


Mch. 

Mch. 

Mch. 

Mch. 

Mch. 

Mch. 

Mch. 

May 

Mch. 

July 

July 

Mch. 


3,18.57 
3,18.57 
3.1871 
3,1873 
3,1857 
3,18.57 
3,1857 
5,1864 
3,18.57 
4,1866 
4,1866 
3,1863 


71 I 
73 ’ j 


Acres. 


442, .542 
165,668 
1,568,729 
183,153 
610,800 

967,840 


1,160,667 
1,040,000 


5.50,525 
4.58,771 


781,944 
1,161,235 
219,262 
640,000 
182,718 

948,643 


1, 261,181 

1,298,739 
1,226,163 
550,468 

569,001 


183,903 
1,5.36,000 
524,800 
312,384 
1,052,469 
586,828 
629,182 
531,200 
552,-515 
128,000 
564,480 
999.983 
524,714 


318,737 
3.50,000 
215,000 
600,000 
750,000 
40,049 


1,248,638 
1,475,000 

2,000,000 

643,403 
i,4io,oai 
1,010,000 
920,000 
56,336 
735,000 
550,000 
800,000 


























































9 


TaUe showing grants of land to States, &c. —Continued. 


state. 

Name of road. 

Date of act. 

Acres. 

Kansas. 

Missouri, Kansas and Texas. 

Mch. 3,1863 
. Mch. 3,1863 
.' July 23,1866 
July 2.5,1866 

1, .520,000 
3,000,000 
1,700,000 

2, a50,000 


Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe. 

Saint .Joseph and Denver City. 

Missouri River, Fort Scott and Gulf.... 


Total... 

.i.. 

53,490,263 


j 


Table showing grants of lands to corporations to aid in the construction of 

railroads. 


Corporations. 

Date of act. j 

Union Paeifie Railroad Company. 

July 1, 1862 
July 1, 1862 
July 1, 1862 
Mar. 3, 1869 
July 1, 1862 
July 1, 1862 
July 2, 1864 
Mar. 3, 1865 
May 21, 1866 
July 2, 1864 
July 2, 1864 
July 2, 1864 
July 25, 1866 
July 25, 1866 
July 27, 1866 
.July 27, 1866 
July 25, 1868 
Mar. 3, 1871 
May 4, 1870 

Central Branch Union Pacific. 

Kansas Pacific. 

Union Pacific, successor to Denver Pacific. 

Central Pacific. 

f 

Central Paeifie, successor to Western Pacific.| 

Burlington and Missouri River. 

Sioux City and Pacific. 

Northern Pacific. 

Oregon Branch of Central Pacific. 

Oregon and California. 

Atlantic and Pacific. 

Southern Pacific. 

Southern Pacific Branch Line. | 

Oregon Central. 

To corporations. 


To States.:. 



Acres. 


12,000,000 
187,488 
6,000,000 
1,000,100 
8,000,000 


1,000,100 


2,441,000 
60,000 
47,000,000 
3,000,000 
3,500,000 
42,000,000 
6,000,000 

3,520,000 
1,500,000 


137,208,688 
53,490,263 


Total 


190,698,951 


These grants aggregate 300,000 square miles, or over 190,000,000 acres 
of laud, an area so vast that great empires dwarf in the contrast. Out 
of this vast domain you could carve two hundred and forty States of 
the extent of Rhode Island, with her 1,250 square miles; one hundred 
and fifty States of the size of Delaware, with her 2,000 square miles; 
seven States like Pennsylvania, with her 45,215 square miles; four and 
one-half times as large as all the New England States (Maine, 33,040 
square miles; New Hampshire, 9,305 square miles; Vermont, 9,565 
square miles; Massachusetts, 8,315 square miles; Rhode Island, 1,250 
square miles; Connecticut, 4,990 square miles), 66,465; three times as 
large as the great States of New York (49,170 square miles), Pennsyl¬ 
vania (45,215 square miles), and New Jersey (7,815 square miles), 
102,200; one and a half times as large as the great German Empire, 
with 208,624 square miles; nearly three times as large as Great Britain 
and Ireland, which have 121,571 square miles, and nearly equal in ex¬ 
tent to the thirteen original States, which only contain 325,065 square 
miles. These gifts vary all the way from 40,000 to 47,000,000 acres. 

It is not, therefore, a subject of wonder that public sentiment crys- 

















































10 


tallized in opposition to these enormous donations, and that for more 
than ten years no further grants have been made. 

In the last decade public attention has been especially directed to 
the use made of these land grants by the respective corporations and 
States. The people are thoroughly aroused and demand that no halt 
shall be made until the Government has her own back again. The 
people of Yakima City, Wash., have so clearly expressed this sentiment 
in respect to the Northern Pacific Railroad, one of the largest benefici¬ 
aries of these land gifts, that I incorporate their declarations to-day in 
these remarks. They are extracted from the columns of the Seattle 
Daily Post-Intelligencer, published in Seattle, Wash.: 

[Seattle (Wash.) Daily Post-Intelligencer, April 24, 1884.] 

FORFEITURE IN YAKIMA COUNTY—STRONG RESOLUTIONS EXPRESSIVE OF POPU¬ 
LAR SENTIMENT. 

The citizens of Yakima County held a meeting in the court-house at Yakima 
City, last Saturday, to give expression to their views on the great question now 
agitating the people of this Territory—the forfeiture by Congress of the North¬ 
ern Pacific land grant. Many speeches were made and but one sentiment was 
brought out, to wit, in favor of the immediate and unconditional forfeiture of 
all lands not earned in exact accordance with the terms of the granting act. 
Among the speakers were Judge Beck, Mayor Gervais, Hon. Edward Whitson, 
County Surveyor Olmstead, County Auditor Peterson, Professor .1. W. Miller, 
A. J. McDaniel, Timothy Lynch, J. T. Simmons, W. F. Jones, William Stewart, 
George W. Goodwin, and J. B. Reavis. 

The preamble and resolutions, adopted without a dissenting voice, read as 
follows: 

“On July 2, 1864 (nearly twenty years ago). Congress granted to the Northern 
Pacific Railroad Company an immense strip of public land extending from Lake 
Superior westward across the continent, and also a strip of land extending 
along what is known as the Cascade branch road in Washington Territory, in 
addition to that opposite the main line. In this way the aforesaid railroad com¬ 
pany has been enabled to hold, as with an iron grasp, nearly one-half of the pub¬ 
lic land of this Territory. At the time this grant was made by Congress the 
northwestern country was a wild and comparatively uninhabited region about 
which there was but little general information, and the design of the grant was 
to encourage a company of railroad-builders to go forth as the forerunners of 
civilization and enable settlers to reach this country without being exposed to 
the dangers and hardships incident to crossing the plains in wagons. 

“ It is now very generally conceded that it was an error on the part of Congress 
to grant the public land to corporations under any circumstances whatever; but 
had the railroad company complied with its part of the agreement and supplied 
the desired thoroughfare within the time specified, there would have been at 
least some compensation for the erroneous and wrongful act. It seems appar¬ 
ent, however, that the managers of the Northern Pacific Company (or at least a 
majority of them) were irresponsible speculators who possessed neither the re¬ 
quisite sagacity nor honesty of purpose, nor suflicient means or credit for carry¬ 
ing out their undertaking. The great aim appears to have been to speculate in 
lands, and town-sites, and stocks, and secure extensions of time from Congress 
and other favors from the Government Land Department. 

“ In the mean time thousands of home-seeking immigrants have toiled across 
the broad and thirsty plains, and, braving the dangers and enduring the hard¬ 
ships of frontier life, have converted the wilderness into productive fai'ius. With¬ 
out any assistance from the Northern Pacific Railroad (which has not yet been 
completed) these immigrants have rescued the great Northwest from roaming 
beasts and savage men, not as with the magic staff of Moses or the fabled spear 
of Ithuriel, but with plow and scraper and with reeking toil they have tapped 
the reluctant waters at their source, and by constructing irrigating ditches for 
many miles over barren wastes, they have converted deserts into fields and gar¬ 
dens; and in doing this they have been forced to fertilize railroad lands and en¬ 
hance their value in order to reach Government lands lying beyond. They 
have built handsome school-houses, and children that were unborn when the 
Northern Pacific grant was made have been educated in these school-houses, 
have graduated from colleges, have married and now have children of their 
own ; and still the Cascade branch is not constructed ! 

“Villages have grown into cities, and many of their sturdy founders have long 
since grown weary waiting for the construction of the subsidized railroad and 
have been gathered unto their fathers in the great continent of eternity—a con¬ 
tinent which we have reason to hope is not traversed by unearned land grants 


11 


like those of North America—a continent wherein there are no railroad sections 
reserved from occupancy and no false promises of early transportation facilities 
to kindle false hopes or vex their dreamless sleep. The lands along the pro¬ 
posed Cascade branch road have not been earned, and at this late day the cir¬ 
cumstances are such that these lands never can be earned by the simple con¬ 
struction of a railroad. They have been greatly enhanced in value, and this 
enhancement represents twenty years of toil and hardship on the part of strug¬ 
gling frontiersmen. 

“ Our cultivated farms, our school-houses, our churches, our local railways, our 
villages and cities, and the ascending smoke from a thousand furnaces and fac¬ 
tories and mills, proclaim to the world that the great Northwest has been trans¬ 
formed from a wilderness without the presence or assistance of the Northern 
Pacific Railroad, which, be it remembered, is not yet eompleted. Indeed, it 
might be easily shown that the railroad land grant has operated to retard rather 
than to advance the development of this Territory, and that the presence of this 
grant is now and has been for many years standing in the way and preventing 
the construction by other companies of much-needed thoroughfares. It is also 
a fact, we think, that for several years past the late president of the Northern 
Pacific Company (who was also president of and stockholder in a rival railroad 
down the Columbia River) has been under pledge to his associates in the rival 
road not to build the Cascade branch road until forced to do so by action of 
Congress or by threatened construction of a road across the Cascade Slountains 
by some other company. In view of these and many other facts which might 
be set forth, tending toward the same conclusion: 

“ Be it resolved. That we earnestly petition Congress in favor of an absolute and 
unconditional forfeiture of all lands not lawfully or justly earned by the North¬ 
ern Pacific Company and promi^ restoration of said lands to the public do¬ 
main. 

“ Resolved, That the public lands of the United States belong of right to the peo¬ 
ple; that any and all legislation which tends to place these lands in Ihe hands 
of speculators or landlords is injurious to the public welfare and ought to be dis¬ 
couraged : that the recognition or toleration of a forfeited grant where the road, 
after long delay, has not been constructed (as in this case), is even less justifi¬ 
able orright than was theoriginal grant; that in foreingsettlersfor many years 
to pay double minimum price for their pre-emption claims, in order that the 
Government might be reimbursed for lands wrongfully granted away, was an 
injustiee on the part of Congress toward those who till the soil, and that this is 
especially true where Congress has failed to in turn force the railroad company 
to supi^ly the transportation facilities and other advantages for which settlers 
have been thus compelled to pay ; that the continued withholding of half the 
lands of this country from acquisition and taxation is imposing an additional 
burden upon the public which should be speedily removed by restoring all un¬ 
earned railroad lands to the public domain ; and that it is the sense of the peo¬ 
ple of Yakima County, in mass-meeting assembled, that the desired railroad 
across the Cascade Mountains, between Eastern and Western Washington Ter¬ 
ritory, will be morespeedilyconstructedby openingthefieldto competition and 
by opening the entire country to occupancy and development.” 

After the above resolutions had been adopted remarks were made by several 
gentlemen eomplimentary to the Yakima Signal, and, on motion, the following 
resolution was unanimously adopted: 

” Resolved, That the thanks of the public are due to the Yakima Signal for its 
constant, able, and fearless championship of the people’s rights, and that it de¬ 
serves and should receive liberal support; and that we also recognize with 
pleasure and approval the editorial course of the Goldendale Sentinel, the 
Dalles Times-Mountaineer, the Walla Walla Journal, the Seattle Post Intelli¬ 
gencer, and that of all other journals now doing battle for the rights of the 
people.” 

The Committee on Public Lands of this House has simply voiced pub¬ 
lic sentiment in the several bills reported by it—ibrfeiting every grant 
which has not been used for the purposes named in the original gifts. 
In this way it is believed over 100,000,000 acres of land now tied up 
in corporate hands will be opened up to homestead, pre-emption, and 
development. 

I am not insensible to the fact that these grants have aided in some 
cases in building roads and developing regionsof country more speedily 
than otherwise would have occurred; that under such stimulus the 
9,021 miles of railroad in 1850 grew to 114,000 in 1883; that transcon¬ 
tinental lines have crossed the continent from east to west and stretched 


12 


out branches to the north and south, among the mountains and over 
the prairies; that along these lines have sprung up like magic towns 
and cities teeming with hardy pioneers and abounding in the vigorous 
life and wealth of a great and prosperous people. 

It must, however, be borne in mind that these grants have develoj)ed 
some of the most disgraceful and gigantic frauds of modern times, smirch¬ 
ing many honored names and bringing under public obloquy men who 
would otherwise have been useful and honored servants of our great 
commonwealth. Thifmgh their instrumentality the public Treasury 
has been robbed of millions of dollars, and great railroad magnates 
have acquired fortunes so colossal as to rival the richest princes of the 
Old World. A chosen few control the stocks and bonds of the great 
railroads of the land. At their will such securities fluctuate so that 
the financial panics, contractions, or inflations are practically as the few 
decree, while the many small holders are left in helplessness, often in 
ruin. 

These great corporations, donees of Government bounty in the gift 
of millions of acres of our richest lands, have developed a feverish tend¬ 
ency in others to acquire vast tracts in our limits for speculative pur¬ 
poses, to the great detriment of the masses. 

Following this example, foreign capitalists have bought up within a 
few years more than 20,000,000 acres of our public lands in tracts vary¬ 
ing from'5,000 to 4,500,000 acres each, and in some cases have inclosed 
and appropriated vast tracts without right as leviathan squatters. I 
annex a list of a few of America’s foreign landlords, and the amount 
of their holding expressed in acres: 


An English syndicate, No. 3, in Texas. 3,000,000 

The Holland Land Company, New Mexico. 4,500,000 

Sir Edward Reid, and a syndicate in Florida. 2,000,000 

English syndieate, in Mississippi. 1,800,000 

Marquis of Tweedale. 1,750,000 

Phillips, Marshall & Co., London. 1, .300,000 

German syndicate. 1,100,000 

Anglo-American syndicate, Mr. Rogers, president, London. 750,000 

Byrau H. Evans, of London, in Mississippi. 700,000 

Duke of Sutherland. 425,000 

British Land Company, in Kansas. 320,000 

William Whalley, M. P., Peterboro, England. 310,000 

Missouri Land Company, Edinburgh, Scotland. 300,000 

Robert Tennant, of London. 230,000 

Dundee Land Company, Scotland. 247,000 

Lord Dunmore. 120,000 

Benjamin Newgas, Liverpool. 100,000 

Lord Houghton, in Florida. 60,000 

Lord Dunraven, in Colorado. 60,000 

English Land Company, in Florida. 50,000 

English Land Company, in Arkansas. 50,000 

Albert Peel, M. P., Leicestershire, England. 10,000 

Sir J. L. Kay, York.shire, England. . 5 ^ 000 

Alexander Grant, of London, in Kansas.. 3.5’000 

English syndicate (represented by Close Brothers) Wisconsin. IIO^OOO 

M. Ellerhauser, of Halifax, Nova Scotia, in West Virginia. 600,000 

A Scotch syndicate, in Florida. ,50o| 000 

A. Boysen, Danish consul, in Milwaukee. 50,000 

Missouri Land Company, of Edinburgh, Scotland. 165| 000 


Total. 20,747,000 


In the absorption of land in large tracts and the growth of large 
landed estates the unaided settler has been crowded to the frontier and 
finds his single efibrts a desperate struggle against corporate and com¬ 
bined foreign capital. Every day the small farmer finds it more diflS- 

































13 


cult to live and meet his necessary expenses. It is a startling fact that 
in the decade from 1870 to 1880 small farms in the United States under 
fifty acres in extent have decreased in number 140,653, while large 
farms have increased in number 494,566. 

The following table exhibits the number of farms of different sizes 
held in the United States and Territories in 1870 and in 1880 respect¬ 
ively: 


Namher of farms in United States in the census years 1870 and 1880. 



1880. 

1870. 

Increase -f 
Decrease— 

Total number of farms. 

4,008,907 

2,659,985 

-1- 1,348,922 

Under three acres. 

4,352 
134,889 
254,749 
781,474 

6,875 
172,021 
294,607 
847,614 

- 2,523 

- 32,132 

— 39,858 

— 66,140 

Three to ten acres. 

Ten to twenty acres. 

Twenty to fifty acres. 

Total decrease in the number of small farms 
■ in ten years. 



140,653 

Fifty to one hundred acres. 



i,032,910 
1,695,983 
75,972 
28,578 

754,221 
565,054 
15,873 
3,720 

+ 278,689 
4- 130,929 
-f 60,099 
-f 24,858 

One hundred to fiye hundred acres. 

Fiye hundred to 1,000 acres. 

From 1,000 acres up. 

Total increase in the number of large farms 
in ten years. 



494,566 





It will be noticed that the most marked increase is in the number of 
farms containing over 1,000 acres each, which were only 3,720 in 1870, 
but in 1880 numbered 28,578, reversing the previous order of our na¬ 
tional growth which had always theretofore been the dividing up of 
lands into smaller farms. 

It is strikingly apparent from this table that our lands like our rail¬ 
road and corporation stocks and bonds are gradually passing from the 
many to the few, and that the few are each year becoming richer, and 
the masses poorer. 

That this result is in a large measure the outgrowth of these colossal 
grants of land to corporations, and the use they have made of them, is 
to my mind apparent, and it is a fact beyond dispute, I think, that the 
legislation of the last twenty years has been in the interest of capital to 
a shameful extent; hence I hail with no slight degree of pleasure the 
determination of the people, expressed through Congress in these bills 
for the forfeiture of unused grants, that henceforth the public lauds 
shall be kept for the people only, and that the millions of our own 
countrymen and such of the industrious immigrants from the Old World 
as may cast their lot in future with us shall find homes and farms on 
our fertile lands at a nominal cost; that the public lands shall always be 
open to homestead or pre-emption at the settler’s pleasure, untrammeled 
and unembarrassed by grasping and speculative monopolists. 

It is not our policy and should not be our practice to encourage mo¬ 
nopolies or develop princely landed estates within our borders, but 
rather to encourage the division of land among the many in small 
farms, making as many as possible of our citizens freeholders, independ¬ 
ent and self-respecting. 






























14 


These grants are helping us each day to engrave on the pages of our 
national history the lines of one of England’s gentlest poets: 

Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey, 

Where wealth accumulates, and men decay. 

Princes and lords may flourish, or may fade, 

A breath can make them as a breath has made ; 

But a bold peasantry, their country’s pride, 

When once destroyed, can never be supplied. 

These giant corporations to-day overshadow the land and mar the 
public weal, and are the danger threatening personal independence and 
individual prosperity in the near future. The people have not acted too 
soon. This is the initial contest in the battle to reclaim from them the 
lands they hold without right and against every principle of justice. 
They have employed the ablest counsel. Their paid agents and attor¬ 
neys haunt the halls of the National Legislature. They have made the 
most ingenious arguments, and are devising every expedient to hold 
these grants. They are using the very gifts of the Government against 
her in the struggle. The result is not doubtful. The people have de¬ 
termined, and what they will shall be accomplished. Let injustice be 
done to none, but to the people and for the people preserve that which 
has been bought with the common blood and treasure and that which 
is justly their heritage, their peerless public domain. 





CHALMERS vs. MANNING. 




s p p: E c li 


HON. ROBERT LOWRY, 

OTP 


IN THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


Thursday, February 14, 1884. 


WASHINGTON. 

1884. 









/ 





-4 

SPEECH 

OF 

HON. ROBERT LOWRY, 


The House having under consideration the contested-election case of Chal¬ 
mers vs. Manning— 

Mr. LOWRY said: 

Mr. Speaker: It may be well regarded as an act of temerity on my 
part to enter upon the discussion of this question at this time under the 
peculiar circumstances surrounding us. This report has now been dis¬ 
cussed for two days and many able and experienced gentlemen have 
engaged in the debate. It is, therefore, with extreme hesitancy and the 
utmost diffidence on my part that I undertake to participate. Indeed, 
it is only by reason of the fact that it seems to me there are yet some 
views of this case which have not been fully presented to the House, 
but which are essential, and should be clearly understood in order to 
dispose correctly of the primary question now pending before this body, 
that I am induced to do so. 

It has been said here, and that by gentlemen learned in the law, that 
this committee has mistaken its duty, and that it has undertaken to 
discharge functions which were not devolved ui^on it by this House. 
And these gentlemen, without having heard the discussion which took 
place before that committee, many of them without claiming to have ex¬ 
amined at length the authorities bearing upon the question, undertake 
to announce e.v cathedra that there was no case in which the Committee 
on Elections of the House, or the House itself, according to the princi¬ 
ples of parliamentary law, was authorized to look behind the certificate 
of the governor of the State, under the great seal of the State, with the 
view of determining as to the prima facie right to a seat upon this floor. 

Much has been said here as to what constitutes i\i& prima facie case. 
There has been no controversy among the members of the Committee 
on Elections; there h^is been no controversy, as I apprehend, here or 
elsewhere, in reference to the point that as a general rule the certifi¬ 
cate of election or return of the officer upon whom the duty is incum¬ 
bent to make the certification as to the election of a member of this 
House is in the first prima fade evidence of the right to the seat. 

No such question is properly a subject of contention. Many eloquent 
tongues have therefore spent, and possibly may continue to spend, their 
energies for naught in seeking to impress us that a rule exists the ex¬ 
istence of which is not only granted but constitutes the very postulate 
of the report of the committee. But, sir, like almost all rules of the 
law, whether it be the common law, whether it be equity jurisprudence, 
or whether it be under the provisions of our respective codes, so in this 
•case there are exceptions to that rule. And while I admit that the 
author of the only work we have distinctively upon the subject of con¬ 
tested elections has seemed to set his face strongly in favor of the doc- 




s 


'X 



4 


trine of excluding tliese exceptions and of insisting upon the principle 
that the certificate of election shall not be gone behind under almost 
any ordinary state of circumstances, yet I think we ought to consider 
the influences under which that gentleman lived and the atmosphere in 
which he moved at the time he was receiving the education and training 
which prepared him for the compilation of this treatise. 

This book (McCrary on Contested Elections) was prepared before its au¬ 
thor had assumed the judicial ermine, before he took his seat upon the 
bench of the United States court, before he yielded to the seductive in¬ 
fluences which have taken him away from the bench of that court and 
prompted him to ally his fortunes with the interests of one of the great 
corporations of this country. He was for a long time connected with this 
same Committee on Electionsof this House. We all know, sir, how dur¬ 
ing that period of time the majority of this House was constituted. The 
history of our legislation and of the administration of parliamentary law 
at that time conveys to us the painful intelligence that that majority 
during the period of its ascendancy here ruled with a somewhat high 
hand, and that there was not under all circumstances the strictest re¬ 
gard paid to the rules of parliamentary law in determining the question 
of the admission or rejection of members to their seats. It will be found 
upon even a cursory examination of the questions which were before 
the House and before the Committee on Elections during the time that 
Judge McCrary Avas connected with it that it was for the interest of 
the great party with which he wsis connected to presume the fact that 
the member holding the certificate of the governor was entitled to pe¬ 
culiar protection and to avoid going behind those certificates, lest by 
doing so the majority of the House of which he was a member should be 
deprived of a part of their representation upon the floor of the House. 
Held together by certain cohesive principles often described, and hav¬ 
ing reference to the fatness of an overflowing Treasury, the}’^ presented 
a picture in such cases of delightful unity, and when a member of the 
party now in the majority here presumed to question the right to a seat 
of one of their number he was not only received with a brow of ada¬ 
mant but disposed of on some pretext or another with a hand of steel. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. IavouRI like to ask the gentleman from Indiana 
a question. 

Mr. LOWRY. I should prefer not to be interrupted, but I will hear 
the question. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Does not every authority sustain the position 
taken by Mr. McCrary; that is, that the certificate gives a man the prima 
facie right to a seat in every legislative body on the face of the earth ? 

Mr. LOWRY. There is a homely adage, Mr. Speaker, that the proof 
of the pudding is in the eating, and I commend it to my enthusiastic 
friend from Kentucky. I think if he had endeaAwed to get at the gist 
of this question by as industrious efforts as some others of us have adopted 
for that purpose lie would not have ventured on the assumption he has 
just made. 

And now for the proof of the correctness of my position. I have con¬ 
ceded the tendency of Judge McCrary’s mind at the time he compiled 
this treatise was in favor of attaching the utmost possible sacredness to 
the certificate of election. But he does not contend, by any manner 
of means, that there are not cases in which it is proper to go behind 
the certificate. And the authority which I shall cite in addition to 
Mr. McCrary will show, I think, lieyond all peradventure that, as ap¬ 
pears from the very reason and necessity of the case must be so, these 




exceptions to the general rule as to the authority of the certificate as 
evidence prima facie of the right to the seat do exist, and the principle 
that such certificate imports absolute verity is not in all circumstances 
to be applied. 

The section of this work I now refer to has been read repeatedly, and 
I now call the attention of the House to it simply for the purpose of 
showing that Mr. McCrary, acting under the influences I have sug¬ 
gested, hiis not favored us with a citation of the cases in which the doc¬ 
trine has been held that the certificate may be gone behind, but has 
contented himself with referring to the case of Hunt vs. Chilcott, and 
adding in addition to the reference to that case that there are a few 
others. Why not give these few ? Sir, an impartial author might at 
least have done that. More accurate and reliable parliamentarians have 
given many others. But to our distinguished author. He says: 

Sec. 224. The case of Hunt vs. Chilcott (2 Bartlett, 164) is one of the very few 
cases in which a certificate of election signed by the proper authority has been 
held insufficient to entitle the holder to be sworn in as a member of the House 
of Representatives of the United States and to occupy a seat pending the con¬ 
test. The reason for this action, however, was that the party holding the certifi¬ 
cate had voluntarily ottered evidence which impeached it. 

I dasire to call the attention of the House to the fact that during 
the pendency of that case the late revered and lamented Speaker, a 
Representative from my own State, Hon. Michael C. Kerr, was a mem¬ 
ber of the Committee on Elections; and the Committee on Elections 
reported as a reason for going behind the certificate that Governor Cum¬ 
mings, w ho was the gentleman w ho issued the certificate and appeared 
before the Committee on Elections as counsel on behalf of Hunt, testi¬ 
fied as to the facts which transpired at the time of the issuance of the 
certificate of election, and that by reavson of the then contestee (who 
subsequently became the contestor) introducing that evidence, it au¬ 
thorized the House and the committee to go behind the certificate. 
While the committee so reported, Mr. Kerr, on the other hand, said he 
had been present at the meetings of the committee, and had heard of 
no evidence of that kind being introduced through the instrumentality 
of Governor Cummings as a witness, and indeed had not heard Gov¬ 
ernor Cummings even admit in his argument in the case that there was 
any such state of facts existing. 

The evidence which it is claimed was submitted by Governor Cum¬ 
mings before the Committee on Elections was to the effect that he con¬ 
ceived himself to be a member of the returning board of Colorado, from 
which Territory the contest came, and, acting in concert with one other 
member of the returning-board, he had voted against the two votes, con¬ 
stituting a majority, of those membei's who regularly constituted the re¬ 
turning board, and had then issued a certificate to Hunt because he con¬ 
ceived that Hunt w'as entitled to it upon the return of the vote. 

Mr. ROGERS, of Arkansas. I would not ask leave to interrupt my 
friend from Indiana [Mr. Lowry] at this point did I not know that he 
was an able and experienced lawyer and it would not break the chain 
of his argument. But I do iisk leave to interrupt him j ust one moment 
in this connection. 

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Lowry] 
yield? 

Mr. LOWRY. In view of my great apprehension that by reason of 
the embarrassment arising from the situation in which I find myself 
placed, being in some measure forced into this discussion, and that with- 


6 


out time for anything like due preparation, and fearing that I would- 
be unable to proceed as satisfactorily if I were interrupted, I took occa¬ 
sion near the opening of my remarks to indicate to the honorable gen¬ 
tleman from Kentucky that I would prefer not to be interrupted until 
I had got through with my argument. However, if it will not occupy 
too long a time, I will be only too glad to yield to my friend from 
Arkansas. 

Mr. ROGERS, of Arkansas. Ju.st one moment is all that I expect to 
occupy. 

Mr. LOWRY. I understood the gentleman to desire to propound a 
question. 

Mr. ROGERS, of Arkansas. Not a question. I wanted to read one 
passage, and then to make a single stiitement; that is all. 

Mr. LOWRY. Will this come out of my time? 

The SPEAKER. It will. 

Mr. LOWRY. Then I must beg leave to decline the interruption, 
because I have promised all the time I have to spare to other gentle¬ 
men. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will proceed. 

Mr. LOWRY. In the case of Hunt against Chilcott, the proposition 
upon which the House rasted its decision was that the governor who 
issued the certificate appeared as counsel before the Committee on 
Elections and had made a statement of certain facts which had tran¬ 
spired before the returning board, and that thereby the Committee on 
Elections and the House were justified in going behind the certificate 
and in inquiring whether Hunt or Chilcott, as it appeared from the re¬ 
turns of the election, had received a majority of the votes cast and was 
entitled to be seated upon the prima facie case. 

Judge McCrary concedes, without’favoring us, as I have said, with 
a citation of the authorities, that there have been other cases of a like 
character. During the course of this argument gentlemen have assumed 
that that is all the authority there is upon the subject. Supposing, 
sir, they are right and McCrary wrong, what precedent could be more 
pointed or more powerful ? 

Mr. Speaker, I know there has been some confusion in the admin¬ 
istration of parliamentary law in this country. We have thirty-eight 
States of this Union, in each of which there is a Legislature composed 
of two branches. We have here in this city the two Houses of Con¬ 
gress. All of these legislative bodies have been engaged in the ad¬ 
ministration of parliamentary law as they understood it to exist. The 
systems adopted by all these, as is well known, were founded on the 
originally crude and certainly yet somewhat abstru.se principles and 
practice which have been handed down to us from the British Parlia¬ 
ment. 

It must be conceded that there has been great diversity of decision 
in the cases which have arisen in the various parliamentary bodies in 
this country. It mu.st be conceded as a lamentable fact that the de¬ 
cisions in all those cases have not been always with reference to the 
principles of the Constitution and the laws. It must be conceded that 
here, especially, cases very often have been conducted rather with re¬ 
gard to party expediency and the interest of majorities upon this floor. 
But I apprehend there is no longer any such great uncertainty upon, 
this branch of the law. I think it has come to be what may be termed 
a branch of the common law of this country, and it is to be hoped we 
are now settling down to sounder constitutional and legal principles in 


its administration. Shall those of us now in the majority tail to aid in 
securing so great and desirable a result ? 

Some of the gentlemen who have compiled treatises upon parliamen¬ 
tary law and practice have aided largely in enabling us to come to a 
conclusion as to what are the correct principles to be applied in cases of 
this kind. It has been, sir, in that respect, as was the case in regard 
to the common law before the time of Blackstone and until he brought 
his magnificent powers of condensation and arrangement to bear upon 
the subject, and, as it were, brought order out of chaos. Just so here. 
The rules of parliamentary law have been commented upon and di¬ 
gested, and principles have been eliminated upon which I think we can 
safely proceed in adjudicating all questions of this character and with¬ 
out any apprehension that mistakes will be committed. 

The time allotted me in this discussion, Mr. Speaker, forbids any at¬ 
tempt at an examination mid criticism of the individual cases. Let me, 
therefore, now call the attention of the House for one moment to the 
principal authority upon the subject of the law and practice of legisla¬ 
tive assemblies. I refer to Mr. Cushing, a man whose mind was never 
warped or contaminated by being brought into contact with the parti¬ 
san methods that so long existed within these walls; an author who 
never found it incumbent upon himself to bend a hair’s breath in order 
to accommodate himself to the demands of supposed party interest, or 
the real or imaginary exigencies incident to the preservation of party 
majorities independently of either fact or law. In section 167, after 
having set forth in other sections the more general rules and coming 
now to treat especially of the certificate, or what is the same thing, the 
return, and enlarging upon it more extendedly than McCrary, this 
author says: 

It has already been stated that the right of a member to his seat may depend 
upon or be involved in— 

What? I beg gentlemen on this side of the House to mark well the 
language— 

or be involved in the return, either in form or in substance, without regard to 
the election. Cases of this description are now to be considered. 

And in considering these cases he proceeds to say, in section 170: 

Where returning officers make a mistake in the name of the person elected, 
and, in consequence thereof, return one who was not chosen, the mistake may 
be corrected, either upon the petition of the person really elected, or on motion 
merely, or, it is presumed, upon the representation of the returning officers. 

171. Where the returning officers, by mistake, consider votes which are really 
given for one person as given for two or more, as, for example, where they re¬ 
gard votes given for A B and for A B, junior, as given for two persons; or, 
where, in copying the lists of votes to be transmitted by the receiving officei*s to 
the returning officers, a mistake is made inthenameof any of tiie persons voted 
for, so that a part of the votes given for one appear to be given for another per¬ 
son, thereby apparently defeating the election of the former; and, in conse¬ 
quence of such mistakes, in either case, a person is returned who was not in fact 
elected, the return will be set aside, and the person really elected admitted as a 
member. ' 

172. Where a return is obtained by means of some fraud or trick practiced 
By or with the consent of the returning officers, or where they are intimidated 
by riots and disturbance from making return of the person duly elected, and are 
compelled to return another^ or where they are corrupted by bribery to make 
a false return—in all these cases the return will be set aside and thepierson duly 
elected admitted to a seat. 

Now mark you, Mr. Speaker, treating exclusively of the return as 
contratlistinguished from the election of the member, treating exclu¬ 
sively of the certificate of the governor, because these are interchange¬ 
able terms, I ask might not this House, in view of these well settled prin- 


8 


ciples of parliamentary law; in view of the allegation that the secretary 
of state, instead of following the certificate of the commissioners of elec¬ 
tions of Tate County, followed a paper attached to that certificate which 
is not recognized by the law of Mississippi and is no part of this record; 
in view of the allegation that the holder of this certificate, both before 
and since the commencement of the Congressional term on 4th of March 
last, has declared that he would not ask to he enrolled under it and 
would not take a seat in this House until, in his own explicit language, 
he had vindicated his right to the seat—if all these allegations should be 
made to appear to be true might not this House, acting upon the estab¬ 
lished principles of parliamentary law, our distinguished friend from 
Pennsylvania [ISIr. Randall] to the contrary" notwithstanding, but my 
scarcely less distinguished friend from New York [Mr. Cox], distin¬ 
guished like the former both as a statesman and a parliamentarian, con¬ 
curring with me on this question—might not this House well determine 
that it would look to the facts as they are spread upon this record for 
the purpose of determining whether upon the face of it the title of Mr. 
Manning is good or l)ad. 

What is prima facie? We are perhaps not all lawyers, not all accus¬ 
tomed to interpreting these somewhat technical terms, prima facie — 
on first appearance. The title upon the first appearance is the title 
that we are determining here; and the question now at issue is whether 
or not the House in the first place had authority to refer to the Com¬ 
mittee on Elections the determination of this (question; and next, 
whether it did in fact exercise that authority. The first proposition 
being established, let us proceed to the next. 

What did the House do ? Brought up as one of the strictest of the 
sect, not of Pharisees, but of the household of the faithful; living, as 
I have ever done, in the ranks of and intimately associated with the 
Democracy of the country, I felt it to be my duty when the question 
as to the force and effect of the certificate merely was presented here 
to follow in the footsteps of my friend from Ohio [Mr. Convekse]. 
When he was seeking to have Mr. Manning seated simply upon his 
certificate, and before anything was brought to the attention of the 
House as to the infirmities connected with that certificate, I followed 
as meekly as a little lamb, and voted every time in favor of seating 
Mr. Manning upon the certificate itself. But a halt was called in the 
proceedings of the House. It was whispered around, and somewhat 
audibly, that a mistake was probably about to be made here. We 
paused; and upon deliberation the resolution which the gentleman 
from Ohio subsequentlj’^ introduced here was determined upon as the 
proper one in this case. I desire now to call attention to the meaning 
of the phraseologj'^ of that resolution. 

Can it be possible that the purpose of the House, having arrived at 
that stage in the consideration of this quevstion, was simply to refer to 
the Committee on Elections the certificate of Governor Robert Lowery 
of Mississippi ? And that name being identical with my own, allow' me 
to say, Mr. Speaker, that were there not, as there are, other and higher 
reasons, I have the very highest respect and regard for it. Was it in¬ 
tended that the committee should perform merely the perfunctory duty 
of ascertaining wdiether the certificate was properly sealed and properly 
signed, and whether Mr. Manning was properly named in it, so as to 
entitle the House to swear him in as a member? Was it not well un¬ 
derstood that there was no question raised here about that matter, that 
not a syllable had been uttered against the authenticity and complete- 


9 


ness of the certificate so far as its form or substance was concerned? 
The resolution being adopted, what was its phraseology? Observe the 
■exact words. It referred the question to the Committee on Elections 
when appointed— 

with instructions to report immediately whether upon the pHina facie ease as 
presented by said papers said Manninfj or Chalmers is entitled to be sworn in as 
■a member. 

As presented by what papers ? Adhering closely still to the text, let 
me quote again: 

Resoh'ed, That the certificate and all other papers in the contested-election caseof 
-J. R. Chalmers vs. Van II. Manninf?, from the second Conp^ressional district of 
the State of Mississii)pi, be referred to the Committee on Elections with instruc¬ 
tions, &c. 

Ah! ‘ ‘ Whether as presented by said papers ’ ’ Mr. Manning or Mr. 

'Chalmers Avas entitled to be sworn in ! But gentlemen would have us 
read this resolution in these words: to “inquire whether, as appeared 
by theccr^Z/fca/cof the governor, Mr. Manning or Mr. Chalmers,” whose 
name was not mentioned in or connected with it, was entitled to be 
sworn in. Why, sir, some of us must have been much at fault, I ap¬ 
prehend, when that resolution was passed if the doctrine of gentlemen 
on the other side of the proposition is correct. If they are correct, then 
this resolution ou(//it to read “with instructions to report immediately 
whether upon the pr///M/ /rtt*icc<ivSe lu'esented by said certificate Mr. Man¬ 
ning or Mr. Chalmers is entitled to the seat.” May I ask, in language 
such, perhaps, as might be used by the honorable gentleman from Colo¬ 
rado [Mr. Belford], why in the name of Heaven these papeis should 
have been relerred to the committee at all if it had not been intended 
at the time of the reference that the committee should inspect ‘ ‘ the 
papers ’ ’ and determine from them the question of the jrrima facie right ? 
Was the House eng-aged in a mere matter of mummery? Were they 
mocking this committee? Did they intend the committee to go through 
with the examination of these papers and then come in and say in their 
report that they had examined the papers as they understood the reso¬ 
lution said ill plain terms they should examine them, for the purpose 
of determining the question involved, but the House had done wrong in 
making the reference, and by rejison of that error on the part of the 
House they would report upon the certificate itself. 

Why did the House see proper to make this reference ? One reason 
was that it was alleged there had been a mistake made in this case by 
the officer of the State of Mississippi upon whom the duty devolved of 
making out this return, of issuing this certificate. Another mistake 
was alleged to have occurred in the county of Tate, where James R. 
Chalmers had been returned as having received 1,472 votes, and in the 
making out of what was then called a tally-paper the amanuensis or 
scrivener who made it out by mistake wrote the name of Chambliss in¬ 
stead of Chalmers, and the secretarj^ of state in certifying the return 
to the governor had acted on that so-called tally-paper and certified 
that Chambliss instead of Chalmers had received those votes. Now, one 
of the papers referred to this committee is the return of the election 
commissioners of the county of Tate. They certify in unqualified and 
unmistakable terms that J. R. Chalmers received 1,472 votes in that 
county, adding to the certificate “as appears by the tally-paper ” on the 
opposite side of the sheet. I will not occupy the time of the House in 
reding from the code of Mississippi. The section ot the code defining 
the duties of the election commissionei’s prescribes that they shall cer¬ 
tify the vote cast by the various counties at the general election. The 


board of commissioners so certilied. The statute does not require anj 
tally-sheet to accompany the returns. In four out of the nine counties 
composing the district there was no such thing as any paper purporting 
to be a tiilly-sheet accompanying the returns. 

I give the names of the counties in order that there may be no mis¬ 
apprehension about the matter. In the counties of De Soto, Talla- 
hatehee, Panola, and Union there was a simple certificate, such sub¬ 
stantially as was signed by the commissioners of election of the county 
of Tate. The secretary of stiite followed in the other cases the body 
of the certificate, but in the case of the county of Tate he accepted what 
appeared on the face of what I think, with all respect and without going 
out of the record, I may denominate a mere thumb-paper, which had 
no existence under the statute of Mississippi, and incorporated in the 
certificate to the governor of the State what appeared on the face of 
that paper. And among the papers referred to us is the affidavit of 
the amanuensis or scrivener who made out those figures purporting to 
constituteatally-paper. Heswears, and hisaffidavit is uncontradicted— 
and in this respect I beg leave to difier with my distinguished friend, 
the chairman of the committee, who drew the report when he says that 
that affidavit is not entitled to the utmost credence as an authentic 
document; it is here on the file, referred to the Committee on Phections, 
never contradicted and no motion made to strike it out—that gentle¬ 
man solemnly swears that he does not believe he wrote the name of 
Chambliss in that thumb-paper, and if he did it was a clericral error. 
And subsequently to that time the same board of commissioners cer¬ 
tified in an amended return that the vote of that county was cast for 
Chalmers, and not for Chambliss. Now, sir, I hold, and 1 think any 
gentleman who will take the pains to inquire into the authorities on 
this subject will agree with me, that this is regarded as a mere mistake 
of the scrivener, and that any officer charged with the performance of 
any duty in connection with an election may, after performing the 
function incumbent on him, correct an error of that kind. 

But if they have once determined a question upon which they have 
discretion to act, having acted, they cannot rescind that act and certify 
a second time to a different conclusion. In other words, that their dis¬ 
cretion having been once exercised is exhausted. But the error, if in¬ 
deed there were one which was material, which I deny, was merely 
clerical and subject to correction. This board ol‘ election commission¬ 
ers did correct the informal paper and recertify; and the reformed cer¬ 
tificate is one of the papers also referred to the committee, and one which 
I think they have properly considered in determining this matter. 

Now, sir, can it be possible that in the case of a board of election com¬ 
missioners making up their certificate of election, if their scrivener shall 
insert a name by mistake, no one connected with the high duty of mak¬ 
ing that certificate has the power to correct a manifest error ? And 
aftei it is sent to the officer whose duty it is to consummate the trans¬ 
action by issuing the final certificate, and such officer is constrained or 
misled into the issuance of the final certificate—as I grant must have 
been the case with Governor Lowry—and such final certificate is pre¬ 
sented, even if it was presented here by the beneficiary, can it be that 
it cannot be called in question, but that the person whose name appears 
in the body of it must necessarily occupy a seat here until such period 
of time elapses as the Committee on Elections and the House itself can 
go through the masses of testimony and voluminous proofs accompany¬ 
ing a contested ciise on the merits ? 


11 


Why, sir, our distinguished friend from New York [Mr. DORS- 
heimer], I think it was, referred to one Rutherford B. Hayes in the 
course of his remarks on yesterday. Suppose now for a moment we 
transplant from the shades of Louisiana to the vales of Mississippi the 
celebrated returning board of the memorable year 1876 —redwivus J. 
Miulison Wells. There is, we will suppose, another Congressional elec¬ 
tion. Of the candidates in this district for Congress one happens to be 
Rutherford B. Hughes; and J. Madison Wells is the supervisor of elec¬ 
tions. authorized to make up the returns. Suppose further that he 
has, as he would probably have, an accommodating amanuensis, and 
whispers in his ear for convenient purposes, your pen slip.” The 
young man takes the hint and w'rites the name Rutherford B. Hayes 
instead of Rutherford B. Hughes. Suppose that gentleman should then 
come here on that certiticate, and claim, with characteristic effrontery, 
the right to occupy a seat which but for thatchirographical slip would 
be shown to belong to another man, and should claim the right to draw 
the salary belonging to that other man. Would the members of the 
majority of this House take the certificate thus presented to them and 
accept it as valid and binding, and say that they cannot go behind it 
and impiire whether that certificate had not issued wrongfully and pro¬ 
ceed to rectify the mistake? Why, sir, I understand that so far as the 
majority of this House is concerned this question is already res ar/Judi- 
cata. It is settled law. I understand that the great party in this 
country that supported and elected Tilden and Hendricks in 1876 is 
irrevocably committed to the doctrine that returns which are based on 
fraud or mistake are worthless and entitled to no consideration. 

Indeed, it is a well-recognized principle of law that mistake or error, 
mutual mistake in the case of contracting parties, mistake on the part of 
a public functionary who is directed to perform an ex parte duty, voids 
the whole transaction and may be relieved against. And it was decided 
by the supreme court of Florida in a case before them in reference to 
the contested election of a seat in the electoral college that they had the 
power to compel the axnvassing board to correct their returns, whether 
they were arrived at through mistake or fraud. Of the many cases on 
this point this I am sure is on this side of the House best known and 
most revered. 

Why, sir, in this very case this question too is stare deeisis. The 
courts of Mississippi have had this question under adjudication, and so 
far as the principle involved is concerned it remains as the solemn de¬ 
cision of the circuit court of the county in which this controversy origi¬ 
nated that the certificate' was improperly made up by the secretary of 
state as to the return showing that James R. Chambliss received 1,472 
votes in the county of Tate. This question having come up in the ceurt, 
and the question of fact being tried by a jury, the decree of the circuit 
court was to the effect that a mandamus should be issued compelling 
the secretary to make a return of Tate County as being cast for James 
R. Chalmers instead of Chambliss. The case went on appeal to the su¬ 
preme court. I have here by accident a report, not official but authentic, 
as I understand it, of the decision of the supreme court of Mississippi. 
There has been some controversy here in reference to the result of the ad¬ 
judication. The supreme court in reviewing the decision of the court 
below virtually affirmed it while formally reversing it; and why ? Sim¬ 
ply for the reason that to undertake to enforce the decree rendered by 
the circuit court would be vain by reason of the fact that the discretion¬ 
ary duty had been already performed by the secretary of state and that 


12 


the certificate had been issued by the governor, the court recognizing 
at the same time, however, the jurisdiction of the court below over the 
•question involved and omitting altogether any criticism upon the con¬ 
clusion to which the court below had arrived. The court above quotes 
largely from authorities. One of them is the Florida case in regard to 
the electoral vote. They then say: 

In this case, the secretary of state having declared Manning to be duly elected, 
and the governor having commissioned him upon such declaration, we adopt 
the language of the supreme court of Missouri in the similar case of Bland against 
liodman, 43 Mo., 256. and say : “Thecase has passed beyond any control of this 
court, and the only redress the relator has, if he considers himself aggrieved, is by 
a legal contest made in pursuance of law.” In that case the writ was denied l)e- 
cause the secretary of state had certified to the governor the result of the election, 
and the governor, acting on that, had commissioned another than the relator. 

If we were to require the secretary of state to make another declaration of the 
result of the election, it would be nugatory. It would not constitute the re¬ 
quired credentials. If we were to command the secretary to issue a certificate of 
any sort to the petitioner we would require what no law requires of him in 
reference to the election. If we assume that the governor would deem it his 
duty to regard a new declaration of the result of the election, enforced from the 
secretary of state by the court, nothing still would be efiected, because the gov¬ 
ernor has no power to recall or vacate the commission heretofore issued. 

And citing the authorities which hold that the circuit court had juris¬ 
diction to consider these questions, although appertaining to the elec¬ 
tion of a Representative in Congress, the}^ conclude that the decision 
below should be reversed simply for the reason thatitw^ould bean idle 
and vain thing to affirm a decree wdiich could not be enforced by reason 
of the power of the authorities having been exhausted in the makuig of 
the previous certification and the issuance of the certificate by the gov¬ 
ernor. 

It is said here, however, that the question is anomalous in its charac¬ 
ter; that while there is no court in all this land, no court in Christendom, 
in wffiich mistakes as well as frauds can not be relieved against, when 
it comes up to this high court of chancery, having under the Constitu¬ 
tion complete control “of the elections, returns” (as contradistin¬ 
guished from elections), ‘ ‘ and qualifications of its members, ’ ’ it is not in 
the power of this House to look beyond the parchment that is brought 
here, and look behind it for the purpose of determining the prima facie 
right. Why, sir, suppose we w ere in any court of j ustice having complete 
and absolute jurisdiction as we have of the question pre.sented, whether 
it be a court of common law^, with chancery powers, a court exclu¬ 
sively of equity, or a court organized under any of the codes, and the 
holder of any document, deed, mortgage, bond, promissory note, or 
what you will should come and say to the court in his pleadings, ‘ ‘ There 
was a mistake in the execution of this instrument; it was intended to 
be executed to another; the owner of this property, or the man on 
whom it w’as incumbent to make the deed, mortgage, bond, or note, 
intended it for another, but my name w'as inserted by mistake; and I 
ask you to render judgment in my favor, notwithstanding that fact.” 
Would not that case be parallel to this? And what court would hesi¬ 
tate to refuse to affirm the right claimed by any such party under any 
such circumstances ? 

I ask the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Dorshei- 
mer] who assumed to deal so summarily with this report, and who is 
familiar with the practice in his State by which, in the administration 
of law, judgment of nonsuit is rendered—I ask him what tribunal 
there is within the confines of the Empire State in which if a litigant 
were to come and present such a record he w ould not be driven uncere¬ 
moniously out of court by a judgment of nonsuit? 


But, sir, in addition to this point of manifest mistake and error there 
is proof aliunde. There is the proof by parol, and not parol merely, be¬ 
cause it has become a solemn matter of record. 

Now it is said, I think not quite ingenuously, by the honorable gen¬ 
tleman from Missouri [Mr. ClardyI that the contestee has said noth¬ 
ing that should conclude him; it was said before him by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, my colleague on this committee [Mr. Elliott], 
who represents in his own person the entire commonwealth of the Key¬ 
stone State—I think it was substantially affirmed by the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Dorsheimer] who spoke on that side, and I know 
it wa^s affirmed by my highly respected colleague from Indiana [Mr. 
Cobb] —that this committee and this House had no right to take into 
consideration any statement by Colonel Manning in reference to the cir- 
cumsffinces under which he came into possession of this certilicate. 

It is said that the district has rights, and that he can not make ad¬ 
missions that will be binding upon the district to its prejudice. Sec. 
359, McC. on El. is citited as affirming this. 

Sir, assuming that it would be to the prejudice of the district, can this 
be so? Is it possible that these three hundred and twenty or more Eep- 
resentatives, many of them experienced debaters, statesmen, and civists, 
are but mere automatons, or that they each come up empowered tu 
represent a constituency and bind that constituency in all other respects,, 
but that they can not by any act or word or deed, however solemn, 
affect their rights so far as the isolated question of representation on 
this floor is concerned ? What then shall become of the solemn provis¬ 
ions of the law whereby it is provided that persons engaged in contro¬ 
versies about seats on the floor of this House shall make up certain 
issues? When they come to have these issues made up are they of na 
avail ? I would like some of our friends who are so constituted that 
they have the happy faculty of determining seemingly by intuition some 
of these grave legal questions to explain to me how it is that for all 
other purposes the Kepresentative can bind his constituency, but that 
notwithstanding the provisions of the statute, when he comes to make 
up the issues in the case, as the statute provides, and by reference to- 
which the parties shall be guided in taking testimony, he can not bind 
his constituency by impairing his OAvn right to sit here. Suppose this 
were the doctrine of McCrary and that it had been supported l3y one of 
the divisions of this House? Could they override the plain provision 
of the contested-election law? Section 121 of that act provides that: 

The testimony to be taken by either party to the contest shall be confined to 
the proof or disproof of the facts alleged or denied in the notice and answer. 

But such is not the doctrine of McCrary or the view enunciated by the 
House. I believe it wjts the remark of a distinguished judge resident in 
Tennessee that he never was very muchof alegal student; that, although 
he had some little credit for a knowledge of the law to which he thought 
he was entitled, he had not got it by hard labor, but that as a practi¬ 
tioner he had always taken occasion when an authority was cited to look 
a little way in advance of the clause that was read or a little way be¬ 
hind it, and he generally found authority to suit his purpose. And it 
seems that, notwithstanding such was the spontaneous way in which he 
acquired his knowledge of the law. General Jackson nevertheless recog¬ 
nized his merits as a distinguished lawyer to such an extent as to place 
him on the bench of the United States Supreme Court. 

Now, if my friends had looked a little further into their authorities 
I think they would have found that the citation they were making was 


14 


not applicable to this case. Without detaining the House by referring 
to it again I will simply say that it appears from the section itself, which 
is cited from McCrary, that the principle enunciated by the House in 
the cases relied on was that where a contestee failed to make answer to 
the notice of contest the House would not by reason of that fact turn 
the sitting member out of the seat; the House wmuld not pronounce 
judgment by default. 

I think I might appeal to even levSS learned gentlemen of the legal 
profession than my friends who have entered upon the discussion of 
this question with so much alacrity; I think I might appeal to them to 
say whether or not it is not the practice of the courts in some similar 
•cases of non-appearance merely, to require proof unless there is some¬ 
thing on the record tending to show a priina facie right to recover. I 
do not know how it is everywhere else. Among the people wdiich I 
have the happiness to rejiresent, however, it does not require even a 
tyro in the law to understand that in the absence of such apparent 
right, as, for instance, if a man comes into court and merely asserts 
that his neighbor owes him on an account, and there is a default on 
the part of the defendant, the plaintilf is not entitled by reason of that 
default to recover, but must prove up his account. But if he has a 
promissory note, a bond, or some legal instrument upon which he is 
suing, or an account verified by oath, the rule would be different So 
in the practice of the common law. You get your judgment of default; 
but if you seek to recover non-liquidated damages you have your writ 
of assessment and make proof. Instead of being divergent very similar 
is the course pursued here. 

A contestant comes in here and files notice of contest. The con¬ 
testee takes no notice of it, sometimes possibly by reason of sickness, 
sometimes perhaps by reason of overconfidence in his case. After a 
time the contestee becomes aware of the tact that it is necessary for 
him to pay some attention to the contest, and he asks to have his rights 
recognized in that regard, or his friends ask it for him. In such case 
as that the utmost extent to which the House went was to say that 
they would not turn a member of this House out of his seat by reason 
■of the fact that the contestee had not answered as to the merits of the 
case. 

But in view of the provisions of sections 2 and 3 of the statute in ref¬ 
erence to contested elections, which sections require the parties contest¬ 
ing in this House to make up the issues and to take testimony in refer¬ 
ence to them, is it not a ivork of supererogation on my part to propound 
the inquiry here, Can it be possible, if there is, either in the notice or an¬ 
swer, solemn admissions of fact that those facts are not beyond con¬ 
troversy and taken out of the arena of proof so as to entitle this Hou.se 
to consider them as being established in the case? 

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Would my colleague [Mr. Lowry] like more 
time ? 

Mr. LOWRY. I would like to have a little more time, say the same 
which I have yielded to others. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I move that the time of my colleague be extended. 

Mr. LOWRY. I ask a very few minutes. 

The SPEAKER. How long? 

Mr. LOWRY. Seven minutes wi 1 do, the same amount of time 
which I yielded to my friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. Randall]. 

The SPEAKER. Consent is asked that the gentleman from Indiana 


15 


£Mr. Lowuy] be allowed to proceed for seven minutes longer. Is 
there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears no objection, and 
the gentleman will proceed for seven minutes. 

Mr. LOWlvY. As a strictl}' legal proposition I assume: first, that 
questions which are settled by pleadings, and I think it will not be dis¬ 
puted that in this case the notice of contest and the answer constitute 
the pleadings as pertaining to contested-election cases, when there is 
presented upon the face of the papers certain facts affirmed on the one 
side and admitted on the other, those facts are put beyond the domain 
of controversy, and it would be idleness and folly for the contestant or 
contestee to proceed to take testimony upon the questions so put be¬ 
yond dispute. 

It will be seen that according to the maxim in which it glories, the 
rule of the law is here consistent with the reason and the spirit of the 
thing. It will be seen, I think, that the parliamentiiry law of this 
<X)untry is in harmony with the general law of the land, and with the 
law of all the States of the Union on this point; that when the issue is 
made up in relerence to which the parties are at variance, then the 
proofs are taken on that question, and proofs not addressed to it are 
outside of it and dehors the record. 

What is the character of this issue? What reference to and bearing 
upon it hasthe answer of General Manning and the papers in this case ? 
Are not the pleadings in the case part of the papers ? Wiis not this 
answer of General Manning referred to us by the language of the res¬ 
olution, and were we not required to look at that answer, and if it ap¬ 
peared upon the papers, including the answer, that this question was 
put beyond controversy, that there wiis no prima facie Ciise, or, on look¬ 
ing at those papers, no right to a seat apparent on their face, was it not 
the duty of the Committee on Elections so to report? 

But there is another point of view in which this matter is to be con¬ 
sidered, and it is this: What equity lawyer on this floor will deny that 
if there is a statement made in an answer in chancery it may be put 
in evidence even b}'^ the adversary, although it may not have been, as 
in this case, put in by agreement at the instance of the party himself , 
making the answer? Is there a gentleman in the hearing of my voice 
who will dispute that as an established proposition? This answer was 
before the Committee on Elections; how does it come there? It is put 
there not merely on the demand for profert of the record in the case 
as to the merits; it is put there voluntarily by the contestee himself; 
and by the terms of this resolution we are asked to determine where 
the prima facie right is according to the admission in that answer, for 
it is a part of the papers. 

Sir, that answer luis been read repeatedly by other gentlemen, and 
I will not occupy time by repeating the whole of it; but what is the 
phraseology of that portion of it applicable here. It is: 

I admit that the inspeotor.s and clerks of the sevei-al election precincts did cer¬ 
tify to the county commissioners of election in their respective counties that 
you received a majoritj'of the votes cast; and I further admit that the 1,472 votes 
which the commissioners of Tate County returned as cast for J. R. Chambless 
were in fact cast for you, and that the name Chambless was inserted in the re¬ 
turn by clerical error instead of your name. And in this connection I state that 
because of .said error to your prejudice I will not take a seat in said Congress, 
or ask the Clerk to enroll my name as a member thereof, until I have vindi¬ 
cated, and the House shall have affirmed, my right thereto. 

That was the principle upon which the contestee acted in the first 
instance. All hCnor to him for it; all honor to him as a former Repre- 


10 


sentetive from the great State of Mississippi. Sir, I regret that he has 
come down from that high estate. What is tlie position that he now oc¬ 
cupies? When thatcerdhcate was first placed in his possession he said 
to himself, What have I here? A certificate issued upon the assump¬ 
tion that James K. Chambless had 1,472 votes in Tate County in.stead 
of James R. Chalmers. That certificate would constitute my death- 
warrant. It is an unclean thing, whose touch is pollution, and whose 
companionship is political death. 

Yet, sir, we find the contestee coming here now and asking us totakeujv 
this condemned thing, to roll it as a sweet morsel under our tongues, as I 
have no doubt our friends on the other side would be glad to have us do, 
to make up the record in that misshapen way and then take it home to- 
our districts and call upon the one hundred and ninety-eight Demo¬ 
cratic constituencies represented on this floor to commend and approve 
of it asathing of good report and altogether lovely. Sir, others may take 
such (‘oiirse as they will; l)ut acting, as I understand my.self to do, in har¬ 
mony not only with a large majority of the committee but with the pre¬ 
dominant sentiment of this side of the House, I trust that on this ques¬ 
tion the voice of the majority here will be of no uncertain sound, and 
will be not only in harmony with the principles proclaimed by us else¬ 
where, but will be such as to meet the approval of the great Democratic 
party of this country, now assured in case of the predominance of pru¬ 
dent counsels and fearless and patriotic action of another victory equal¬ 
ing, if not surpassing, in its magnitude that of 1876, but differing there¬ 
from in that the country must and shall be permitted to realize and 
enjoy its fruits. 

o 


H. 


\ 


Fitz-Jolm Porter. 


SPEECH 


OF 

HON. THEODORE LYMAN, 

OF MASSACHUSETTS, 

In the House of Representatives, 


Friday^ January 18, 1884. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole, and having under consideration 
the bill (H. R. 1015) for the relief of Fitz-John Porter— 

Mr. LYMAN said: 

Mr. Chairman: It is a pity that in discussing questions of this 
nature we can not have hung in a convenient position a map of the 
field of battle, for it is no slur on the intelligence of the members to 
say that nine-tenths of them can not carry the positions of the troops 
in their heads. Could such a map be hung opposite the lower portion 
of the Speaker’s desk the House would even consent to the temporary 
eclipse of our friends, the nimble-fingered reporters and those whom 
we may in Homeric phrase call the loud-shouting reading clerks. But 
in the absence of such a convenience it may be possible to construct on 
the floor of this House a sufficiently accurate diagram. Let us call the 
Speaker’s chair Centreville, not an inappropriate location, for from that 
center come the friendly rays of recognition; then this main aisle would 
be the Warrenton turnpike, and where I stand Gainesville. Let us call 
the side-door which is diagonally behind me Thoroughfare Gap. Then 
Manassas Junction would be diagonally in front of me where sits my 
friend from New Jersey who formerly represented us at Vienna, but 
whom I will ask to represent for a few moments the railway interests. 
Bristoe Station, on the Alexandria Railroad, would be at the seat of the 
honorable gentleman from New York [Mr. Skinner], and Warrenton 
Junction, on the same road, would be on the same aisle at the place of 
the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Everhart]. From 
Thoroughfare Gap to Gainesville, where I stand, is only some six miles, 
and from Gainesville to Groveton, which would be where this main aisle 
■enters the open space in front of the Speaker, about three miles and a 
half. The confederate line of battle, when in position on the 29th of 
August, was about four and a half miles long; it extended from a point 
near Sudley Springs, which point will fall at the seat of my popular col¬ 
league, the Representative from Harvard University, and trended in a 
.southerly direction across the Warrenton pike, a little this side of 


/ 






Groveton, to a point south of the Manassas Gap Eailroad. I shall ask 
my friend from Vermont, whose silver hair is his only mark of age, to 
represent the right of the confederate line, positively for this occasion 
only. 

Let us confine ourselves strictly to those movements which concern 
the question under debate, and see how the troops got on the field. 
Jackson had flanked our army on the Rappahannock, on the right. On 
the night of the 26th, having passed Thoroughfare Gap, he descended 
on Manassas Junction and captured all our reserve supply trains and 
sutlers’ wagons. His men, remembering the wise precepts of Sir Dugald 
Dalgetty, fell on the pork and hard-tack, canned lobster, and brandy 
peaches, and not only satisfied the hunger of the past, but laid in an 
abundant supply for the future. 

General Pope, like an astonished terrier, who, while defending his 
ears, suddenly finds his tail pinched, faced about and marched in all 
haste on Gaines^fille and on Manassas Junction. But Jackson had no 
idea of waiting his pleasure; he moved north from Manassas Junction 
and settled dowm in line of battle, with his left near Sudley Springs 
and his right on the Warrenton pike, along which he stretched a friendly 
hand toward Longstreet, who, with the other half of the Army of North¬ 
ern Virginia, was preparing to pass Thoroughfare Gap. 

Meanwhile, General Porter, being at Warrenton Junction, received 
on the evening of the 27th of August an order from General Pope to 
march to Bristoe Station, where he arrived on the morning of the 28th. 
Here he lay awaiting orders during that day. On the morning of the 
29th he was ordered to march on Gainesville. At about 11.30 a. m. he 
arrived within three miles and a half of Gainesville, and found himself 
in the presence of the enemy. He halted and, with some skirmishing 
and artillery fire, remained there during that day. These two days, 
from the evening of the 27th to the evening of the 29th, embrace the 
period during which General Porter committed his alleged military 
crimes. An analysis of the charges against him shows that they are 
reducible to two. The others are either implied in these two or were 
abandoned at the trial. 

The first charge is, that being ordered on the night of the 27th to 
march at 1 o’clock the next morning from Warrenton Junction so as 
to be by daylight at Bristoe Station, he then and there disobeyed said 
order. In point of fact General Porter in no sense disobeyed the order. 
He only modified it by marching two hours later than the time set 
down. It is proved that his division commanders expostulated strongly 
against starting at 1 o’clock, saying that their troops were exhausted 
by hard marching, that the night was excessively dark, and that the 
narrow road-was blocked by wagon-trains. General Porter, who at 
first replied that the order must be obeyed, was at last convinced of 
the wisdom of their views and postponed the start for two hours. On 
arriving next morning at Bristoe Station he found no enemy and no 
demand for his services. In other words, he, with the advice and as¬ 
sent of his division commanders, postponed his march for two hours, 
and on arriving at Bristoe Station found that his troops had not been 
needed. This act of his has been loudly proclaimed as a gross dis¬ 
obedience worthy of death. If there be one military principle better 
grounded than another, it is that the general rule of implicit and in¬ 
stant obedience may have modifications. When an officer is at a dis¬ 
tance from his commander he is allowed a certain discretion in the in¬ 
terpretation of orders received, and the higher the rank of this subor- 


3 


(iinate officer and the farther removed he is from his commander, the 
wider is this discretion. But this safeguard is always maintained that 
when a subordinate so situated does modify an order, he modifies it at 
his proper peril. Under this general principle, the action of General 
Porter in j)ostponing his march ^was entirely proper in the military 
sense. But even admitting what is not true, that he had no other 
choice than instant obedience, his arrival two hours late on a field where 
he was not needed was deserving of no heavier a penalty than a verbal 
reprimand. 

The second charge is that being directed, in an order dated 4.30 p. 
m. of the 29th, to attack the enemy’s fiauk, he did shamefully disobey 
the same. 

This order reached General Porter when he was halted on the 29th 
as before described, about three and a half miles south of the War- 
renton pike. In issuing this order General Pope fell into two errors 
which destroyed its force. 1. He supposed that Jackson alone was on 
the field, and that Longstreet would not there arrive until the next 
day. 2. He supposed that Porter was a mile and a half nearer the 
Warrenton pike than he really was, and that he thus stood within 
striking distance of Jackson’s unprotected right flank. The order read, 
“Your line of march brings you in on the enemy’s right flank,” and 
General Porter was ordered to attack that flank and get, if possible, in 
its rear. But the real state of the case was this: Longstreet, with a force 
over twice as great as that of General Porter, had passed Thorough¬ 
fare Gap, and by half past 11 on the 29th was in line of battle, with 
his left,connected with Jackson’s and his right some distance south of 
the Manas.sas Railroad. This so-called 4.30 order, then, was one im¬ 
possible of execution; for Porter was not on the flank either of Jackson 
or of Longstreet, and any direct attack by him would have been met 
by an enemy of twice his strength and strongly posted. In such a 
direct attack his corps must have been repulsed and driven in confu¬ 
sion from the field, a disaster which would have exposed the left flank 
of the rest of the IJnion Army and insured a defeat far more crushing 
than the one that occurred on the following day. 

The order was impossible of execution; but this is not all: although 
dated 4.30 p. m. it is proved by overwhelming evidence not to have 
been delivered till sunset. To have deployed the second line and made 
the attack would have taken one or two hours, when darkness would 
have prevented any effective assault. In one word, an order impossible 
of execution was delivered too late for any attempt to carry it out. 

The much-concentrated statements I have made are carefully based 
on the decision of the West Point board which reviewed General Por¬ 
ter’s case. It may be properly asked why did the original court-martial 
condemn him to be cashiered; and why did the West Point board not 
only exonerate him, but give him high praise for his soldierly conduct? 
The answer is a simple one. • The West Point board had before it not 
only the entire evidence of the original court-martial, but a vast amount 
of new evidence which added much to the knowledge of the case and 
further gave a new interpretation to many portions of the old testimony. 
Thus the court-martial decided that General Porter was opposite the 
unprotected right flank of Jackson and had time and opportunity to 
attack it, while the West Point board demonstrated that he was in no 
such position, but was opposed by nearly the whole of Longstreet’s 
corps; and further, that he received the 4.30 order too late to make any 
attack. 


Cv' 


4 


By the decision of one or the other of these courts we must he gov¬ 
erned ; for it is out of the power of any gentleman on this floor to give 
an opinion on evidence which was studied for months by the officers of 
those courts. 

Nor can we hesitate for a moment which of the two to take as our 
guide. On the one hand we have a colirt-martial held at a time of wild 
public excitement and prejudice, and furnished with imperfect and one¬ 
sided evidence—a court two of whose members had been in the battle, 
and whose reputation was at stake; nay, one of whom descended to the 
floor, gave evidence against the prisoner, and then resumed his seat to 
pass judgment on him. On the other hand we behold a board of three 
eminent officers passing six months in the study of all the evidence, 
new and old. Of this board of three officers, two were at the outset so 
strong in their feeling against the accused that they wished to be re¬ 
lieved, fearing they could not do him justice; and yet these two officers, 
Generals Terry and Schofield, were forced, by the overwhelming testi¬ 
mony, to change from hostility to admiration. 

The gentlemen of this House who still hold to their old feelings 
against General Porter would act wisely were they to follow the distin¬ 
guished example of those two officers. 


O 


APPEOPEIATIONS FOE THE NAVY. 


SPEECH 


HON. WILLIAM McADOO, 

'\ 

Oin NEW JERSEY, 


IN THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


Wednesday, March 5 , 1884 . 


WASHINGTON. 

1884 . 





'■' ♦ ► 'i 


^ 

V tL r: ■ 'f,.. ■•■ ■■'V.-’ ' 


^,;-}:|iw,?,;-'k'», 

if” ■■■ 

■1 ' !Pt;/. / 



' _'■ , ■ '*»- . .- _S'r 


- » 




•.*** 




,, .v 




'fe'««;••*'i V'^HyO’Vi ' '■^ 

i#klf -Miiik'. ' ■■*■' ■ , • .: '"' ^:■. 






■ *A ' V’’ •‘Ir'l ■/ 




i-#f'I bb-*^ ■ '■.. 

afe^''-:'r@iv:’^‘-fiWl:- ^■'-- ■ ■'‘^- I--' •- 



k/V>J 






/ »j 2J JA 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON. WILLIAM McADOO. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union^ 
and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 4716) making appropriations for 
the naval service for the fiscal year ending June 30,1885, and for other purposes— 

Mr. McADOO said: 

Mr. Chairman : It seems to me that this question of the staff andi 
'line officers of the Navy, and the question of consolidating the bureaus: 
of the Navy Department, and the other minor questions which have 
been brought up in this debate, ought all to be subordinated to the 
great question whether we shall build up a navy or not. 

The history of the American Navy from the days of its pristine 
glory to its present humiliating condition is a step from the sublime to 
the ridiculous. I have before me the letters of Sir Charles Napier on 
The Navy: Its Past and Present State (London, 1851). He said in 1816- 
that the English navy of that day could not contend with the AmerU 
can Navy. Let me read from him : 

They— 

The English ships— 

would have beat a French or Spanish ship, wlio were worse than themselves ; 
but I Avill stake my existence had an American line-of-battle ship fallen in with 
one-half of them they would have been taken. 

And again: 

Things are now changed. We have an enemy (for though at peace I consider 
America our bitterest enemy), I fear, as courageous as ourselves, and one who 
will hav'e the advantage over us as long as their Navy keeps in proportion to 
their population, or rather as long as'it is so much inferior to ours as to oblige 
them to act upon the defensive. 

He also reluctantly admits the superiority of our officers and men. 

We had, it seems, at that time the finest navy in the w’orld. But 
to-day the American humorists are all poking fun at our officers, and 
saying that a young lieutenant who recently married a great heiress can 
now plug ui> the holes in his ship at his owm expense before going to 
sea. That is the condition of our Navy to-day. 

This side of the House is not responsible for the pre.seiit condition of 
our Navy. The dominant party in this land had ten years in which tu 
build up the Navy. It sjieut $385,000,000 on it. I venture to say that 
the English people have not spent as much in proportion for their navy 
as we have, and that for an excuse for oue in the worm-eaten cheese- 
boxes that are disgracing our flag, parading it before the nations of the 
earth. 

If we need a navy, and I think we need a moderate and fair navy 
to keep together ouratlmirable corps of officers and men, the great ques¬ 
tion is. How shall we get it? In what manner shall we build up this 
navy? Shall it be by the contract .system, or in our own navy-yards?* CK 
What kind of ships .shall we have? 



4 


1 want to impress upon this House the fact that all naval architect¬ 
ure is groping in the dark. Thenations of the earth could to-day, with 
advantage to themselves, pass around the hat, as it were, and take up 
a contribution for the purpose of enabling two great naval powers to 
engage in war in order to demonstrate how far naval architecture and 
the science of explosives have advanced. 

The Committee on Appropriations of this House have been criticised 
because they have not appropriated money to continue the building of 
the monitors. I think in that they have done wisely. I hold in my 
hand .the official journal of the Army and the Navy, a respectable news¬ 
paper, representing both arms of the service. I find in the current num¬ 
ber of that journal an article which I will ask the Clerk to read, and 
request that the time tiiken up in its reading shall not be taken from 
me. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time required for the reading of the article 
must be taken out of the gentleman’s time. 

Mr. McADOO. Then I ask leave to print it with my remarks. 

[The article referred to is as follows: 

The thickness of the armor of the Miantonomoh consists of a single plate 7 
inches thick, the latter [the Inflexible] consisting of two plates together 24 inches 
thick. 

Sir Thomas Brassey, in his great work. The British Navy, furnishes elaborate 
tables showing the penetrating power of the guns of the royal navy. Refer¬ 
ring to these tables it will be seen that the 9-ton 8-inch caliber gun is capable of 
piercing 7-inch thick wrought armor, and that the moderate caliber of 10-inch 
and 18-ton weight penetrates 12-inch thick armor; while the 16-ineh caliber 80-ton 
^un of the Inflexible pierces armor plates of 22-inch thickness. The 7-inch armor 
of the Miantonomoh is therefore vulnerable to all clas.ses of British ironclads, 
the majority of whose guns will put their projectiles clean through both sides of 
«uch turret ves.sels. In the face of this fact the Navy Department earnestly recom¬ 
mends their completion, “ as they will provide floating harbor defenses sufficient 
for present purposes, and may justify us in further postponing the construction 
of any such expensive broadside armored ships as have so heavily burdened the 
treasuries of other nations.” The sum asked for the said completion is. in round 
numbers, S3,598,(XK), which, if granted by Congre.ss, will be worse than wasted, as 
the only result will be to lull the nation into false security. It is indisputable that 

couple of first-class ironclads can send the whole fleet of the overrated “ harbor- 
■defense monitors ” to the bottom. Congress, instead of adopting the “ earnest” 
recommendation of the Navy Department, should forthwith order the unfinished 
monitors to be disposed of, and suitable harbor-defense vessels built for the three 
and three-quarter millions saved. 

The cost of the Miantonomoh thus far is given as $1,219,784.26; original cost of 
the vessel, $1,190,852.84; repairs, $28,931.42. She is now lying at the Brooklyn 
aiavy-yard, where the building of her turret frames and alteration to the hull 
will Ixi proceeded with in a short time. Proposals for her steel plates have been 
advertised for, and the plans and specifications for the work have been com¬ 
pleted in detail by the naval Bureau of Construction and Repair.] 

I w'ant to say this about it: there is a diagram accompanying the 
article showing the strength and thickness of the armor of the English 
Inflexible and of the Miantonomoh of our Navy. The article, as will 
be seen, says that the ordinary guns of the English navy, the ordinary 
rifled cannon of the English navy, can penetrate through both sides of 
the armor of our ship, the Miantonomoh, on which we have spent a large 
sum of money. Gentlemen say there is a popular demand for a navy 
and that it must be met by building a fleet of cruisers and completing 
these monitors before either has been tested. 

Now, sir, with regard to these cruisers I am afraid members may be 
misled. Steel cruisers sound formidable, but in reality these vessels 
^ire to be but steel shells which can be as readily penetrated by pro¬ 
jectiles as a tin box by a bullet of sufficient calibre. Now, again, the 
.argument that they can prey on commerce and run away from an enemy 


5 




is doubtful when we reflect.that foreign governments, under a sul^sidy 
system alien to our institutions, liave fine mercantile ships, like the 
Alaska and Oregon and hundreds of others, that, with slight alterations, 
at her best can meet our will-he Chicago and, with better guns, ad¬ 
vantage her in fight and outrun her in speed. 

Sir, because we need a navy is no argument for running into the net 
of favorite contractors and scheming politicians. Let us at least test 
the cruisers we are now building before we contract for more. Our 
highest naval officers have condemned in advance the Chicago; the 
leading English engineers have condemned her engines. Even if she 
meets the best wishes of her projectors she can simply make a credit¬ 
able display, while of doubtful utility. As the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Cox] said, the other day, this is the age of guns. The ship 
is but the gun-carrier; all depends on the gun carried. We are utterly 
behind in the matter of guns; ours are antedated. The old smooth¬ 
bores bear the same relation to the monster rifled cannon of recent date 
as the old flint-lock shotgun to the modern Winchester rifle. Let us, 
if we must have a navy, begin first to build guns. Then, with good 
guns, let us under favorable auspices and honest government build ves¬ 
sels that can go outside Sandy Hook to thunder their iron hail on the 
•sides of a Lepanto or a Duilio and receive in return their fire unscathed. 
To-day we are at the mercy of almost every power, and .spend more 
than most. A glance at the following table is instructive. 


T/ie navies of the world. 
[Compiled from official document.^.] 


Countries. 

[ Number of ' 

vessels. I 

1 1 

Number of 
men. 

> 

a 

c 

0 

T. 

6 

Argentine Republic. 

27 

991 

$550,439 
4,6a3,669 

Austria-Hungarv. 

68 

6,369 
172 

Relgiiim. 

10 

Brazil. 

41 

4,984 

5,898,132 

Canada (Dominion). 

7 

Chili..'..'. 

23 

1,468 


Cliinfl,. 

56 


Colombia. 


1,000,000 

1,383,940 

Denmark. 

33 

1,125 

Egypt. 

14 

France. 

258 

48,283 
15,815 
58,800 
652 

^2,267,498 
9,722.721 

Germany. 

86 

Great Britain and Ireland. 

238 

5i; 607,175 
l,a56,530 
9,227,132 
3,015,000 

Greece. 

18 

Ttalv. 

67 

16,140 
5,551 

Japan . 

27 

TVTexieo. 

4 

Netherlands. 

122 

5,914 
4,342 

4,849,776 
448,632 

Norway. 

123 

"Pern . 

18 

Portugal. 

44 

3,569 
530 

1,607,411 

Roiimania. 

10 

Russia. . 

389 

30,194 
15,179 

19.268,755 
6,429,163 
1,424,250 
2,816,000 
15,686,671 

Spain. 

139 

Sweden . 

131 

5, 925 

Turkey. 

78 

23,000 

11,115 

United States_.. 

139 

"Venezuela. 

4 

200 





















































G 


It is well to remember in connection with this hible that our one hun¬ 
dred and thirty-nine vessel^ include, excepting the Trenton (wooden), not 
one really first-class ship, while navies having less vessels in number are 
vastly superior in quality. 

I am in favor of keeping together, even under these discouraging cir¬ 
cumstances, the best part of our officers and nie:i until we have ships to 
fioat them with honor to the country. It would take twenty years to 
reorganize, once disbanded, such a body as we have to-day. There are 
thousands of able, braA e, patriotic American sailors in our Navy who 
w'ould shed glory upon our flag in any emergency. 

Let us build the Navy from the bottom upward on solid foundations; • 
but above all, iu the light of past events, let us be sure w^e build it hon¬ 
estly. The Democratic party can Siifely go to the country if it is retarded 
in building a navy by a well-founded distrust of public servants over 
whom they have no control. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. McADOO. I ask leave to print additional remarks. 

There wus no objection; and leave w'as granted accordingly. 

Mr. McADOO. I submit the amendment which I send to the desk. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

On page 13, after line 296, add the following;: 

That from and after the pa.«isag:eof this act all war vessels not then contracted 
lor, and the repair of all war vessels, all steam-engines, boilers, and machinery 
for war vessels in commission, or to be put in commission, shall be built, made, 
or repaired at the Government navy-yards by the Government and under the 
supervision of its authorized agents and officers. 

Mr. McADOO. Now, ]\[r. Chairman- 

Mr. CALKINS. I make a point of order upon the amendment, but 
am willing it shall be re.served till the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
McAdoo] has been heard. 

Mr. McADOO. linsi.st, ^Ir. Chairman, that this amendment does 
not come under the prohibition of the rule; and that it is in the in¬ 
terest of reform and retrenchment in the Navy Department. It is ad¬ 
mitted on both sides of this House that there have been extravagant 
expenditures in that Department. The larger part of the money ex¬ 
pended has gone to contractors. I propose by this amendment that 
hereafter the w^ork, instead of lieing done by contractors, .shall be done 
in the yards of the (rovernment. 

There is another feature about this matter. AVe are unfortunately, 
by reason of unjust laws or other causes, not an iron-ship building peo¬ 
ple. We have not, as Great Britain has, a large number of private 
ship-building yards. Hence the Government, when it asks lor bids, 
is restricted to those of one or two ship-builders. The result of this 
paucity of bidders is that there is not honest, wholesome competition. 

So that the Government is obliged, almost, to accept the olfer of one 
contractor; and that contractor is the one who has built most of the 
ve.ssels and recei^ ed most of the money of the Government. When we 
authorize a ship to be built we are compelled to go hat in hand to Mr. 
Roach and say, “Please, good Mr. Roach, name your own figures and 
treat us honestly if you will. ’* Now, I admire Mr. Roach’s ability and 
pluck, and can hardly blame him for taking advantage of the situation; 
but at the sjinie time w e wMll be derelict in our duty if we do not cur¬ 
tail his advantages over the Government. We, I tru.st, represent the 
people, not Mr. .John Roach. 

There is another feature of this amendment which prevents it from 
cx>ming under the rule: that it is not in the interest of economy. We 


liave a large number of professional engineers underpay, whether on 
board or waiting orders or on shore-duty. If you open the nayy-yards 
you may put this professional skill to work and receive some service for 
the salary which is paid. 

I am not alone in this argument, for the Bureau of Steam-Engineer¬ 
ing says in its report that such will be the case should our navy-yards 
be opened. The report reads as follows on that point: 

I am of the opinion that the assistant engineer officers who have finished 
cruises at sea should be utilized to a very much greater extent in our navy-yards, 
and be ordered, not for clerical services, for which they are not trained es¬ 
pecially, but as far as pi-acticable to have charge as het^ds of the several shops, 
for w'hich their profession fits them, in the place of the master workman or fore¬ 
man of such shops, thus dispensing with one very considerable source of ex¬ 
pense for yard maintenance, and with but the small increase for their pay as 
officers on shore-duty rather than on waiting orders. This would not only 
be a great saving in the cost for organization but be a practical school for these 
officers, training them constantly in the line of their profession, in the minuter 
details of designing, making, and repairing the various parts of machinery, Ac., 
which are used on naval vessels, together with the tools, methods, appliances, 
&c., for the work. 

For obvious reasons the bureau would not recommend a general and sweep¬ 
ing change in this direction at once, thereby discharging a large class of skilled 
and faithful mechanics, but as vacancies occur from time to time that they be 
filled by these engineer officers. 

The bureau is also of the opinion that there would result a very considerable 
saving in the expenditures for the making, care, repair, and attendance of the 
steam generators, and appliances of the several kinds and uses in the navy-yards, 
if they were all placed under the general charge and controll of the engineer offi¬ 
cers of the yards, the expense of each to be paid from the appropriations of the 
bureaus using the same, as now ; thus giving a practical opportunity and possi¬ 
bility to carry out another recommendation of the Navy-Yard Commission, that 
one general steam-generating establi.shment be provided in each yard to furnish 
steam for all motive power and steam-heating purposes, thereby securing “ econ¬ 
omy of fuel, reduced expense of attendance, and an increase of convenience and 
efficiency.” 

The various shops under cognizance of this bureau at the several navy-yards, 
with their present equipments and appliances, are in good working order, and 
equal to any present requirement for repair of engines, boilers, &c., or for the 
rapid and economical construction of new modern machinery of first-class de¬ 
sign and workmanship. 

The boiler-shops at New York, Wa.shington, Norfolk, and Mare Island yards 
have been greatly improved by the addition of a few modern machine tools, and 
are now producing first-class boilers from very large and heavy steel plates, at 
a less cost per pound than has ever before been done in our navy-yards, or ob¬ 
tainable under contract. 

I am aware the honorable Secretary of the Navy advocates the contract 
system and inveighs against the yards. But his argument against the 
yards in his current report seems to me lame and inconsistent. He ex¬ 
presses a horror of political influence in the yards, which does him credit 
in the expressing it, and would cover him with infinite glory in the 
practice of its suppression. We on this side of the House must cer¬ 
tainly be allowed to share his fears, and some of us, maybe, could nar¬ 
rate moving tales of the awful realization of the honorable Secretary’s 
susiucions. He says, on page 18: 

The question wliether all the steel naval vessels of the future shall be con¬ 
structed by contract, or some of them by contract and some in the navy-yards, 
it is not necessary immediately to determine. Assuming that the hulls of such 
ships might be judiciously and economically built in the yards, it is doubtful 
whether the machinery will ever be so constructed. All the engines for the 
British navy are built in private shops. But conceding that, wherever the ships 
may be originally built, it is desirable for the Government to possess shops fitted 
for such repairs as may from time to time be found necessary, it is due to truth 
to declare that the Government repair shops under the present system ought 
not to be intrusted with them. 

These establishments must fii’st be thoroughly reorganized in such a way as 
to exclude all political considerations from their management, otherwise bad 


8 


and expensive work will be the result. We can not afford to destroy the speed 
of our naval engines in order to make votes for apolitical party. 

If the yards have been used to influence elections may we not in¬ 
quire who was in fliult? Is it not a plea of guilty for a great political 
party to make this statement? We certainly can not be blamed, for it 
is so long since the Democratic party had anything to do with the 
navy-yards, save through this House, that it has almost forgotten their 
location. Of course when we will that work shall be done in the yards 
we mean that it shall be honestly performed without regard to partisan 
considerations or political influences. The contract system can be as 
readily abused. Will’ not favorite contractors come down handsomely 
to Hubbell committees and coerce employes, or only employ those who 
are desirable politically ? 

I ask the attention of the House to another fact. The Navy of the 
United States, mostly now under the contract system, embraces one 
hundred and thirty-nine vessels, and most of them are of a very poor 
class. The navy of Spain is composed of one hundred and thirty-nine 
vessels, and the majority of them are superb ironclads. It is a further 
fact that while it costs over $15,000,000 a year to maintain the United 
States Navy, it only costs a little over $6,000,000 a year to maintain 
the first-class navy of Spain. 

In conclusion: Immunity from war—perpetual peace—is no-more, 
granted to nations than terrestrial immortality to man. The same curse 
that spread weeds and briers among the flowering vistas of Eden and 
shadowed its bowers with poison-dripping vines gave over man to epi¬ 
demics, disease, ‘ ‘ wars and rumors of wars. ’ ’ We should seek to spread 
peace, but be reasonably prepared for war. Our coast, which fringes 
the fairest and richest land on earth, has been protected from the mo- 
narchial freebooters of Europe by shifting sands and tort uous channels; 
a few million wisely spent will make it invulnerable. Our people come 
from all lands and go everywhere. The bed of the Atlantic is threaded 
and its bosom is furrowed by the wires and prows that bring it in hourly 
communication and contact with the seething population of the Old 
World. The American citizen must be protected in every land. Our 
flag, which istheday-starof humanity and the beacon-light to mankind 
struggling upward to freedom and a higher civilization, must be made 
respectable the world over, and, if necessary, behind its moral force must 
rest the hand of power. Our Constitution preaches “ peace on earth, 
good will to men, ’ ’ but the rights of our citizens and the honor of this 
great federation of free States must be maintained against foreign ag¬ 
gression. 


O 


1 ^’^ 


* Men, that make 

Envy, and crooked malice, nourishment. 
Dare bite the best.” 


SPEECH 


OF 


HON. WILLIAM McADOO, 

OF NEW JERSEY, 


IN THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


JANUAEY 19, 1884. 


WASHINGTON. 

18S4. 







ft \ f 


1 


SPEECH 


OP 


HON. WILLIAM MoADOO. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole House, and having u er con¬ 
sideration the bill (H. R. 1015) for the relief of Fitz-John Portor- 

. Mr. McADOO said: 

Mr. Chairman : As a representative of the State of New Jersey on 
the floor of this House I feel that I should he recreant to my duty if 
I did not on behalf of one of her honored citizens, General Fitz-John 
Porter, say a few words in advocacy of this bill. An 1 amble (dvilian, 
and a young one at that, it may seem presumptuous foi me to take part 
in this great warfare of words among the contending brigadi#'rs and 
thunder-voiced sons of Mars. 

In the first place I desire to take notice of some remarks made yes¬ 
terday by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Steele]. I read from 
the Congressional Record: 

I do not wish to reflect upon the gentlemen composing the board, and I am 
not going to do it; but what I have told you is true. Senator Randolph got the 


names of the men composing the court and sent them down to Willard’s Hotel 


to be submitted to gentlemen pressing the case, to know whether they would 
be satisfactory or not, and they agreed upon the gentlemen who did constitute 


the court. 


Schofield was aspiring to be the President of this great country ; Randolph 
carried New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania in his breeches pocket- 

Sir, I have heard it said outside of this House that by the peculiar 


methods of ‘ ‘ soap ’ ’ the State of Indiana was at one time carried in the 


pockets of a particular gentleman; but I thank God that the State 
which I in part represent on this floor has never been carried in the 
breeches pocket or any other pocket of any man, living or dead. So 
far as Senator Randolph is concerned, in the State in which hewast)om, 
the State which he represented with so much honor on the floor of the 
adjoining Chamber, and among his neighbors and his friends he never 
was accused of doing by indirection what an honest, frank, open, hon¬ 
orable, and manly man would not do by direct methods. He has passed 
to join the illustrious dead, but his memory is still green and fragrant 
in the State which he loved and honored. I do not know and I can not 
conceive upon what evidence the gentleman makes the assertion; but 
I do not believe it to be true, and I am constrained in charity to be¬ 
lieve that the gentleman has been misinformed in making it. , 

So far as this case is concerned, I shall not enter into an argument 
as to military details. I prefer in a fair and manly way to take a gen¬ 
eral view of this case from the standpoint of a civilian, and endeavor 
to find out what is just and right in the matter. And when we come 
to review this court-martial, when we come to pass upon its judgment, 
I think it is pertinent to inquire as to the time when they made their 



\ 




4 


decision. Was it a time when cold and exact justice was being done, 
or was it a time when passion sat upon the bench, and prejudice was the 
advocate ? At a time of ci\dl strife, in the midst of warring factions, 
when partisanship ruled the day, on the very field of battle, as you 
might say, this decision was made which stamped an honorable man, 
an upright and conservative soldier, as a traitor to his country. We 
are not bound by the injustice of that decision. We are trying this case, 
as it were, de novo. 

I think it is but right in these times of peace, when the passions of 
that unfortunate strife have cooled, when men’s judgments are sober, 
that the finding of this court-martial should be reviewed by us, the 
representatives of the sovereign people. As to the finding itself, I ask 
attention in the first place to its severity in the light of after events. 
It can not be denied even by gentlemen on the other side of this House 
that had Fitz-John Porter carried out those orders the entire corps of 
the Federal army which he commanded would have been annihilated 
and destroyed, and therefore he was guilty, if guilty at all, of merely a 
technical disobedience of orders. 

Mr. STEELE. I do deny it most emphatically; and I want to say 
that if our army was victorious on the night of that 29th of August 
without the aid of this corps, what logic is there in supposing they 
could not have made that victory a rout if this corps had come in ? 

Mr. McADOO. I ans\f er the gentleman from Indiana by saying that 
according to the testimony of General Longstreet and the testimony of 
others who commanded the confederate troops, had Porter advanced to 
carry out the preposterous order of General Pope he must have been 
annihilated. 

I ask attention, as I said, to the severity of the sentence of the court. 
I will bring to bear upon the finding of that court the well-known 
maxim, ‘ ‘ False in one, false in all. ’ ’ I say here to-day, to gentlemen on 
the other side, that there are two findings of that court which were 
demonstrated then, as they are now, beyond peradventnre or doubt, to 
have been false. One of the charges made against General Porter was 
misbehavior, under, I think, the fifty-second article of war—“shame¬ 
ful retreat!” This honorable court-martial—this court-martial whose 
finding we must not question or iuA^estigate, even for the purpose of 
doing justice—this court-martial, without a particle of testimony, by a 
mere exercise of their imagination, as we must assume, found that 
General Porter had shamefully retreated, when the fact was that he 
had not moved from his position, but held it to the safety of General 
Pope himself. 

I ask attention also to another finding. I submit to gentlemen on 
the other side that if they will coolly and impartially investigate the 
testimony they must conclude he was not guilty of misbehavior in not 
marching under that order to move from Warrenton Junction to Bristoe 
Station when we take into consideration the circumstances by which he 
was surrounded. 

Why, sir, what were the conditions of General Porter’s corps when 
that order was received? The last troops (Morell’s division) which 
reached his (vamp after night had marched nineteen miles, hungry, 
tired, exhausted beyond endurance. These men did not reach their 
tents to sleep until 10 o’clock. He was asked to march, I think, a dis¬ 
tance of from nine to ten miles, from Warrenton to Bristoe. 

Mr. STEELE. Does not the gentleman know that Jackson marched 
thirty miles the day before? 


Mr. McADOO. Jackson is not on trial here, and we are now talking 
of the conditions of Pope’s army, and not the conditions of any other 
army. Why, sir, on the night on which he received this order the very 
elements were against him. By the evidence of all the witnesses, the 
night on which he received it was exceedingly dark, the gloom lighted 
occasionally by flashes of lightning, a drizzling rain falling the while. 
The road over which he was to make the march was rough, narrow, 
filled with stumps, crossed by streams, blocked by nearly three thou¬ 
sand wagons and intersected by a railroad track on which trains were 
passing and repassing. It was almost impassable. To carry the or¬ 
der to him required the otflcer who brought it over three hours and 
twenty minutes. Troops could not move as fast as a single horseman. 
His officers protested that it was impossible to obey; yet he only par¬ 
tially yielded to their protest and ordered a prompt move to be made 
at 3 o’clock in the morning. 

Besides this, what did the order which reached him at Warrenton 
Junction say to him? That General PopC was being attacked, that he 
was in danger, that he must come to the rescue of the Federal Army ? 
Oh, no. It told him the enemy was in retreat. Why then should he 
not exercise his discretion? I think, sir, when it comes to the question 
of military rule the great Napoleon is superior to the little Pope, and 
the great Napoleon laid it down as a rule that when the man in the gap 
knows facts of which his superior officer is ignorant he has the right to 
act upon his discretion and save his men, and possibly the army. When 
Porter’s troops moved in the morning his expectations were realized. 
The story of that march has been graphically told. Struggling teams, 
mired artillery, disheartened men, and distracted officers made up the 
picture of that unfortunate march in the early dawn between Warren¬ 
ton Junction and Bristoe Station. Yet this most learned and just court- 
martial applies for this the almost indellible stain of traitor to an hon¬ 
orable and upright man. 

Of his failure to attack Longstreet on the ‘29th, a great deal has been 
said on the floor of this House. I speak, sir, from the standpoint of a 
man who was unfortunately too young to have taken a part in that great 
struggle—from the standpoint of a civilian, but I think as a lawyer, 
and a man, the evidence does show that he was not able to carry out 
the preposterous order of General Pope to outflank General Jackson. 
‘‘Why,” said General Longstreet, speaking of it, “outflank Jackson 
when he got the order ! Jackson had outflanked him. It was impos¬ 
sible for him to outflank the man who had outflanked him. ’ ’ 

As to the joint order. General McDowell when he joined forces was 
really the superior officer of Fitz-John Porter. General McDowell 
moved away and did not carry out that order. He did not ask General 
Fitz-John Porter to carry it out, but advised against carrying it out. 

Mr. STEELE. He gave a positive order for him to go in. 

Mr. McADOO. The gentleman from Indiana is mistaken about that. 
General McDowell says, “Fitz-John Porter, you are in no position to 
fight a battle here. ’ ’ 

Mr. STEELE. I find no such evidence in the record, but on the 
contrary I find the reverse. 

Mr. McADOO. The gentleman can read that when he has the floor, 
but I decline to be interrupted at this time. I have already yielded 
half of my time to a gentleman on the other side. 

Now, sir, this case hinges in the minds of men on what—on a mo¬ 
tive. If there is no motive there is no case. There can be but one 


0 


solution of this question. Eithjer Fitz-John Porter was a coward and 
a traitor or a loyal man and a good soldier. That he was not a traitor 
I have the evidence of the illustrious general who led the Union forces. 
We have evidence of the most illustrious generals and soldiers that 
Fitz-John Porter was always loyal to his country. No one has been 
able to place upon him the stain of disloyalty. In the adjoining Sen¬ 
ate Chamber the gentleman who represents my State, General Sewell, 
a Republican, has given his testimony that Fitz-John Porter was a loyal 
man. 

Farther, that he was a coward! I would scorn, Mr. Chairman, to 
undertake to defend him from the charge of cowardice. If his record as 
a soldier staring in the face gentlemen on the other side of this Cham¬ 
ber, if the very catalogue of his battles, if his actions prior to the date 
of this occurrence, if his whole record as a conservative soldier, an hon¬ 
orable man, and an able, a valorous officer were not sufficient to sustain 
his character, I would scorn to notice the charge of cowardice. He 
proved on many a bloody lieKi from Mexico to Manassas to be not only 
a brave and loyal soldier, but a chivalrous and daring man. 

There is but one thing left, and tliat is, they say, he had a gi’eat dis¬ 
like and contempt for Pope. Mr. Chairman, I do not wonder that he 
had a contempt for Pope. I do not think he would be a good soldier 
if he did not burn with contempt of the vacillating and incapable Pope. 
They say that it was the boast of that vainglorious champion that his 
headquarters were in the saddle. That may be the case, but God only 
knows where his brains were. [Laughter. ] 

Mr. STEELE. Let me ask the gentleman with reference to his be¬ 
lief as to that order of Pope- 

Mr. jMcADOO. I have yielded all the time I intend to yield to gen¬ 
tlemen on that side. 

I say, Mr. Chairman, this General Pope, in the face of the illustrious 
soldier and great captain of the confederate army. Stonewall Jackson, 
played the part of an imbecile, and by his acts and tactics generally 
brought down defeat and disaster upon the armies of the Union. No 
military critic, as far as I am aware, has ever been able to sustain 
the tactics, the maneuvers, and the management of General Pope when 
he controlled the armies of the Union. Well, it is said because Fitz- 
John Porter had contempt for Pope that he sacrificed—what ? That he 
sacrificed his own honor, his own character, his well-earned reputation 
to be revenged upon him. Why, Mr. Chairman, such a suggestion is 
preposterous, that this man would sacrifice his own good name, would 
sacrifice his own position, would sacrifice his reputation as a soldier 
simply because he had contempt for the imbecile who unfortunately com¬ 
manded him. I do not believe, sir, that the motive was strong enough 
to impel him to such an act. But what more do they say ? We find 
that although he had contempt for Pope, he yet obeyed orders from that 
officer, simply because they were the orders of a superior ; although they 
were against the dictates of his own judgment, still he obeyed them. 
But, sir, they had to find a scapegoat somewhere for the disasters 
which followed. General Pope’s mismanagement had brought de¬ 
feat and discredit upon the Federal Army. His want of activity and 
skill had led good men to their graves in myriads, and they must find 
a scapegoat, and this alleged honorable, immaculate court-martial was 
convened to find it, and the unfortunate victim was found in General 
Fitz-John Porter. But it is vain for gentlemen upon the other side to 
try to put an obstacle in the way of slow-going justice. The eternal 



i 

years belong to truth and justice. While she may travel with a leaden 
heel, she will yet strike down error with a strong iron hand. 

I do not wonder, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Steele] , speaking of the court of inquiry and its composition and 
the men by whom it was formed, should criticise it in the manner in 
which he has done. It is a serious obstacle in his way. If that court 
of inquiry was right, then the gentleman from Indiana and those who 
follow him are wrong. If that court of inquiry was right, Fitz-John 
Porter has been grossly wronged. I am willing for my part to believe 
them right rather than the gentleman from Indiana. 

Now, as the case stands to-day before the bar of public opinion and 
before this House, on the one side you have testimony from the man 
who was President of the United States and who led the Union armies, 
together with a galaxy of Union generals, jurists, statesmen, honest 
and able men, and on the other a few partisans, with nothing but 
the heat of partisanship, which has not yet had sufficient time to 
cool. Thus the conflict between passion and judgment rages. Where 
will the verdict of the House go? On what side will it cast its de¬ 
cision? On the side of this impartial testimony of the ablest men and 
leaders of the Army, or the side of the few partisans who can not forget 
the character of being partisans even on an occasion of this kind ? It 
is, however, refreshing, it has been refreshing and stimulating to me, 
to see that there are glorious exceptions, as I have seen upon the other 
side gentlemen willing to forget their partisanship, to do justice to 
their sense of right, and advoctiting the doing of tardy justice to a 
wronged man. 

Why, sir, in the State of New Jersey, where Fitz-John Porter lives, 
the Legislature of that sovereign State, without a division, time and 
again have petitioned for the redress of the wrongs done him. There, 
where he lives, where his character as a man, as a neighbor and friend 
is well known, they have unanimously asked that the Congress of the 
United S.tates shall do him long-sought-for justice. 

In conclusion, this unfortunate man, who has struggled with his 
burden through these bitter years of cloud and darkness, stands to-day 
without the doors of this House. I do not wish to appeal to the senti¬ 
ment of gentlemen; I think the cold facts in this case justify Fitz-John 
Porter. I would scorn to ask mercy, but I demand justice for him. 
He stands to-day without the doors of this Chamber asking, what ? Not 
your sentiment, stirred up by any flood of eloquence, not your mercy, 
but cold, even-handed justice. I say, sir, that we should have him go 
from these halls back to his family and his friends restored to the con¬ 
fidence of his country, that he may be enabled to transmit to his chil¬ 
dren the most glorious of all inheritances—the heritage of an honora¬ 
ble, unstained, and noble name. [Applause.] 

The purest treasure mortal times afford, 

Is—spotless reputation; that away, 

Mem are but gilded loam, or painted clay. 


o 



i 


In abolishing the internal reyenue we are carrying out the spirit of our free 
Constitution, making no experiment as to the result of indirect taxation, and 
freeing great sections of our common country from an excise regulation that fos¬ 
ters monopoly and is better fitted to the genius of a monarchy than a republic. 


SPEECH 


OP 


HON. WILLIAM MicADOO, 

OIP NEW JERSEY, 


IN THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


MARCH 37, 1884. 


WASHINGTON. 

1884. 





*v 

%sl 

N/ 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON. WILLIAM McADOO. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and 
having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5265) to extend the time for the pay¬ 
ment of the tax on distilled spirits now in warehouse— 

Mr. McADOO said: 

Mr. Chairman : In my opposition to this hill I am not actuated by 
any fanatical idea of temperance, as I am opposed to all sumptuary 
laws. It seems to me that the arguments which have been adduced on 
this floor against the passage of the bill from a purely temperance point 
of view ought not to have any weight. This is not a question of morals 
or police regulation of the liquor traffic. I think that so far as the tem¬ 
perance question is concerned Federal legislation should be directed more 
to securing for the use of the people a pure stimulant than in taxing 
production. In the hurry and the press, in the wear and tear of modern 
civilization, disguise it as we may, wisely or unwisely, the majority of 
mankind will resort to stimulants and narcotics. 

I am opposed to this bill on the general principles of sound legisla¬ 
tion. There have been but three classes of arguments in its favor pre¬ 
sented on this floor. The flrst is that the men who are to be benefited 
by the passage of this bill are a good lot of fellows and need our sym¬ 
pathy. That argument merits no consideration. It may do credit to 
the hearts of those who ofier it, but it is certainly a severe commentary 
on their heads. 

The second argument is this: that the general law which oppresses 
these men is a bad one, and that we should therefore give them this 
special relief from its universal application. I think that is the strong¬ 
est argument why this bill should not pass. For myself I am in favor 
of wiping out the whole internal-revenue system. It is not a question 
of experimental politics in my State. The Democratic party of my State 
put the question to the people of New Jersey, and the people declared 



4 


by nearly 7,000 majority in the gubernatorial election against the en¬ 
tire system of internal-revenue taxes and internal-revenue collectors. 
The gentleman who has just sat down [Mr. Eandall] argued against 
it from one end of New Jersey .to the other. 

I do not believe in voting for this bill, because if we grant relief to 
those who suffer under the internal-revenue system, and yet want to 
uphold it, we will never be able to wipe it out. I am glad we are dis¬ 
cussing in this respect a question of taxation where, justly or unjustly, 
we can not be accused of acting in the interest of New York silk-ribbon 
jobbers or the English manufacturers of cheap razors and Soho Square 
pickles. 

In abolishing the internal revenue we are carrying out the spirit of 
our free Constitution, making no experiment as to the result of indirect 
taxation, and freeing great sections of our common country from an' ex- 
cise regulation that fosters monopoly and is better fitted to the genius 
of a monarchy than a republic. 

The bill being unsound on general principles, I do not think we are 
called upon to discuss its merits or the effect which a failure to pass it 
may have or not have on business interests. As a matter of fact these 
manufacturers, either through bad judgment or cupidity, overstocked 
the whisky market. They got caught as many other men have under 
similar circumstances, but, unlike any other business, they now ask 
Government to loan them a vast sum of money to help them out, and 
from past successes in Congress appear to have some hope that beyond 
the interest on such principal they may never have to pay anything in 
return. 

This is a question which affects our own people solely. I do not want 
the incubus of this tax to remain upon the grain-fields of the Northwest 
or to continue its blight and shadow on the tobacco-planters of Virginia. 
The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Findlay] stated as an argument 
in favor of this bill that his sympathies were enlisted in its behalf be¬ 
cause it is a Kentucky measure, and in that connection he spoke of the 
glorious history of that Commonwealth. 

Sir, I do not yield to the gentleman from Maryland in my respect for 
the memory of Henry Clay or my admiration of the ennobling history 
of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. But I ask that gentleman to look 


o 


across the historic river that flows beneath the shadow of this Capitol, 
and to remember that the great agricultural interest of the ancient, 
honorable, and glorious State of Virginia is tobacco, and to my mind 
certainly as legitimate a crop as is wheat. And I want him to help me 
to defeat this bill, because of its defects and demerits, and to insure the 
abolition of a system which is not only blighting the commercial and 
material jirospects of that great Commonwealth, but is seeking to run 
its politics and to ruin its people, and is bringing disgrace and dis¬ 
honor upon her name. ^ I hope that this bill will not pass, in the in¬ 
terest of good legislation. We ask that legislation shall be general, 
not special or class. 

There has been another argument offered in support of this bill; 
that is, that in some mysterious way it is connected with the tariff. 
And the illustrious gentleman from New York who spoke yesterday 
afternoon [Mr. Hewitt] said he was in favor of making alcohol free 
because it was used in the arts and came under his catalogue of raw ma¬ 
terials. Well, I am not opposed, as I have said, to the legitimate use 
of alcohol; but the principal art I know of in which whisky is said to 
be frequently used is the art of giving an aurora-borealis tint to the nose. 
[Laughter.] I do not know whether the gentleman from New York 
referred to that particular art in his remarks or not. But the gentle¬ 
man is inconsistent. He would free alcohol and bond tobacco; take 
away from the poor man his pipe and leave him the cup. 

I do not see that it is connected with the tariff. The newspapers, it 
is true, inform us that the tobacco-men of Virginia and North Carolina 
have been offered a bait in the shape of a modicum of relief if they 
will accept a certain tariff bill now before the House. Now I ask 
gentlemen if that is not like inviting a man to a banquet and telling 
him that he shall have quail on toast, and then saying to him that be¬ 
fore he can have any quail on toast to gratify his own palate he must 
eat a little crow to please you; that is, no crow no quail, no quail no 
crow? [Laughter.] 

I do not propose to make any conditions. I think it is unmanly to 
hedge around a proposition with a condition of that kind. I am in favor 
of offering the tobacco-men relief regardless of tariff legislation. I want 
in connection with this tariff suggestion to say to the leader on the Re- 


G 


publican side, who spoke last evening and who threatened to dissolve his 
burly form in oleaginous laughter at the expense of the Democracy 
of the House—I want to tell the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Reed] 
that the good old ship of the Democratic party, containing the church 
militant of the true political faith, notwithstanding these March gales 
will yet come into harbor with the doves of sweet peace singing har¬ 
mony on its yard-arms, and the old flag of the Constitution floating 
gallantly from its peak. 

I want to tell the gentleman from Maine that the good sense of this 
great Democratic party will, in its own proper time, solve the tariff 
problem in the interest of the producing and laboring people of this land. 
I want to tell him that in the .solution of it we shall be guided by the 
“greatest good to the greatest number; ” and while we may not please 
a certain class of absolute free-trade theorists who think they have a 
first mortgage upon public opinion, and tha^ the great universe is sit¬ 
ting up in its night-clothes to hear them speak [laughter], nor on the 
other hand a class of advocates of overprotected capital and unprotected 
labor who are insisting because they themselves are amassing wealth 
that the American workingman is driving silver nails with a gold ham¬ 
mer and walking on luxurious carpets while his daughters are playing 
on thousand-dollar pianos, we will settle it to the interest and satisfac¬ 
tion of the people. 

I want to tell him that there is a proper solution of the tariff ques¬ 
tion; and a proper time and place to discreetly and honestly examine 
the system in the interest of honest toil and economic government. 

I know, sir, that some people affect to believe the tariff question can 
only be settled in Heaven, where they have no “ local issues ” and no 
great editors to blow cyclonic blasts upon their bugle horns, making 
window-^anes rattle and the babies cry, from the sylvan shades of the 
‘ ‘ blue-grass ’ ’ region of Kentucky to the pebbly shores of my own de¬ 
lightful Jersey. 

It may be the gentleman from Maine thinks it can be settled in the 
other place, where they have a prohibitory tariff not alone on cold water 
but upon the Democratic party, individually and collectively. [Laugh¬ 
ter. ] But we will settle it in our own time, in the mean while I want 
this Democratic House to pass a measure that shall abolish a .system 


7 


against which every father of the party from Thomas Jefferson down 
has inveighed. I want that we shall rid the wheat-fields of Iowa, rid 
the orchards and vineyards of my own State, rid the tobacco-fields of 
Virginia and North Carolina, rid the manufacturing people who are 
engaged in the tobacco industry, rid our free people everywhere of a 
system that creates spies and informers and loads down honest trade 
and toil. I want that we shall pass a true Democratic measure by ceas¬ 
ing to deal with the unclean thing in piecemeal, a species of legislative 
quackery that addresses itself to alleviating a local affection instead of 
boldly eradicating the disease that produced it. 

From the standpoint of sound policy this bill is a bad one; from a 
business point of view these men are the victims of their own folly or 
cupidity; from a legislative view it is forgiving a debt honestly and 
legally due the Government and voting away about $60,000,000 of the 
people’s money or at least imperiling its collection. Sound statesman¬ 
ship and the good sense and honesty of the American people declare 
against this bill. 


O 



TARIFF AXD OTHER REFORMS. 


ALL REFORMS COME FROM AND ORIGINATE IN THE 
RANKS OF THE GREAT COMMON PEOPLE. 


SPEECH 


HON. WILLIAM McADOO, 

vx 

OW JERSEY, 


IN THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


MAY 6, 1884. 


WASHINGTON. 

ltiS4. 





V 







SPEECH 

OP 

HON. WILLIAM MoADOO. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5893) to reduce import duties and 
war-taritf taxes— 

Mr. McADOO said: 

Mr. Chairman : It has been so often said,, especially on this side of 
the Honse, by members of the Democratic party who are in the majority 
on this question, that those of ns who belong to that party ^d are 
opposed to this measure are unwilling to go upon the record that I can 
not refrain from speaking the sentiments which actuate me in giving 
my vote against the so-called Moirison bill. And I want to say in all 
frankness to these gentlemen that as for myself and my relations to the 
State which I have the honor in part to represent on this floor, I would 
be glad, so far as publicity is concerned, if you could Avrite on the face 
of the sun the fact that I am opposed to and shall vote against this 
measure. 

With due deliberation, deprecating unwise agitation, I voted against 
its consideration. Well, sir, it has been considered. Memorized dec¬ 
lamations and studied essays have been delivered for and against. 

We were told that its discussion would bring to these Halls the voice 
of many millions crying for its adoption. What has followed? The 
jingle of wine-glasses has been heard on Brooklyn Heights, the plaudits 
of the Republican Beechers and Shearmans, the rattle of the festival 
dishes on Murray Hill, New York, and the soft and delicate applause 
of the perfumed elite of Chicago, but never the gentlest Avhisper from 
the conventicles of honest labor or the ranks of struggling toil. Are 
gentlemen blind? All reforms come from and originate in the'ranks 
of the great common people. Christianity itself was not propagated 
' by the wise and learned of the conceited sanhedrim, but Avas preached 
by fishermen and fructified by the blood of carpenters. The honest 
theorist may be a Baptist in the wilderness, but he preaches in cabins 
instead of congresses. But gentlemen say we must have a distinctive 
issue. Sir, great issues grow up in the natural order of eA^ents, and 
come not at the peremptory bidding of long-haired magazinists and 
short-brained editors. 

Now, in the few moments allowed me, I come to the consideration of 
this bill with no plundered proceeds of the public Library, with no pad¬ 
ding from statistics, and with no fatiguing list of fallacious figures tc 
appall the members of this House. Let the overburdened and groaning 
record muddle the curious investigator, but let it be ours to speak ^ 
simple sense to sensible people. ^ 



4 


I waut within the few minutes allowed me to address a common-sense 
argument to the great American Commons as to why I, a member of 
the Democratic party, vote against this measure. 

There are three scliools of thought on this question. There is the 
protectionist, who advocates of protection for its own sake, and would 
acknowledge no limitation as to amount from any constitutional view. 
No Democrat who has learned his creed aright can be found upholding 
such constitutional construction. After him, on the opposite extreme, 
comes the free-trader, crying either revolution or reform, as may best 
suit his convenience and subserve his end. He may be constitutional, 
but he is impracticable, un-American, visionary, and dangerous. He 
advances to the music of oiir chief commercial competitor and wins 
his triumphs to the stirring notes of “Rule Britannia.” He is cosmo¬ 
politan; talks of the brotherhood of man, the fraternity of races, the 
coalescing of all creeds, and addresses himself to a millennium of uni¬ 
versal peace and catholic freedom. His soul pants, and not in vain, 
for the martyr’s crown, while he contemns the victor’s sword. He is 
for this bill as a feeble step toward his great goal. 

I admire him when honest and hate him Avhen masked, but pity him 
always. It has been said that truth is sometimes found at the bottom 
of a well. Certainly here it is found on the solid rock of self-evident 
truth, between the shifting sands that constitute the promontories of 
error. On this momentons question, founded upon the life-long teach¬ 
ings of the immortal Jefferson and the heroic Jackson and a great gal¬ 
axy of illustrious Democratic statesmen, it found a voice in the much- 
criiicised Ohio platform, and was re-echoed in New Jersey, Virginia, 
Pennsylvania, aud North Carolina. 

In brief, it took the middle and constitutional Democratic grounds. 
It demanded a revenue tariff as prescribed by the Constitution, but recog¬ 
nized and witnessed for the protective feature within the reA^enne line. 
It demanded a discrimination and honest reAusion in the interest of 
labor alone, aud cried out betAveen every line, ‘ ‘ From the horrors of hori¬ 
zontal humbuggery good Lord delHer us! ” It asked for the abolition 
of the internal-reA’^enue Avar taxes of which on another occasion I liaA'e 
spoken in this House. It deprecated free trade, scourged unconstitu¬ 
tional protection, and demanded careful revision to put down monopo¬ 
lies. It is opposed to this bill, Avhich, having free trade for a beacon, 
swings its remorseless scythe to horizontally reduce, without regard to 
size, shape, or condition; Avhich pierces the heart of the struggling in¬ 
dustry and barely touches the tOAvering locks of giant monopoly; which 
inaugurates a ruinous agitation while impotent to accomplish the slight¬ 
est result. Sir, in the course of events Ave will outgrow unnecessary 
imi)Osts, and in the mean time our tariffs must be founded on the dif¬ 
ferences in Avages, the bettering of the condition of labor, and the up¬ 
holding of home markets for our agricultural products. I do not be¬ 
lieve this country is solely great by reason of tariffs, but I much fear 
she would not be so strong but for restrictive imposts. 

I love the noble and historic party to Avhich I belong because I love 
my country, and I am convinced my country Avould be happier and 
more free, more dignified, and more honestly conducted under its rule. 
This great and constitutional party has ever-living issues in the nicely 
adjusted balances of our Federal system; in upholding the rights and 
dignity of the individual citizen, maintaining his freedom, and securing 
his happiness; in curbing monopoly and restricting government; in 
forever defending home rule and the proper soA^ereignty of the States; 


o 


in reforming tlie Government and purifying its brandies; in a word, 
keeping alive by precept and practice grand, yet simple, constitutional 
democracy ! It must not be allowed to chase an ignis fatuus in the de¬ 
lusive hope of victory upon the platform of a chimera of the brain. Its 
platform must not be built upon the tracts of Cobden and the selfish 
arguments made to order in Birmingham and Manchester. The free^ 
trade enthusiast is ever turning to England as the Mecca of his hopes. 
For six hundred years they say England groveled and groaned under 
the protective system, £^nd only became “roast-beef, merry England ” ' 
under free trade. 

Sir, there is a crushing and demonstrative answer to this—an answer 
which appeals to the eye and needs no sophistry of argument to render 
it more effective. If England under free trade is happy, merry, pros¬ 
perous England, then, sir, account to me if you can for the long train of 
emigrant ships that under her free-trade flag disembark annually their 
thousands of poverty-stricken emigrants on our shores. Account to 
me, if you.can, for the pathways of human bones of her famine-stricken 
subjects that cover the bed of the Atlantic, whose souls took flight from 
their hunger-blighted tenements ere they could reach our tariff-pro¬ 
tected shores. 

Sir, I say this without prejudice, and I trust I am too sensible and 
patriotic, were I even now convinced that this was a reciprocity of 
benefit to her and us, to advocate the absurd policy of the boy who 
went without his dinner to spite his schoolmaster. But as yet I do 
not see such reciprocity. 

I listened with great pleasure to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hurd], admired his eloquence, and was struck with his zeal. But, 
sir, I can not coincide in his judgment. He did not make a practical 
address. He was speaking of a theme ui^on which the very stones 
could be eloquent; but he was talking in advance of his time. His 
speech may have been the language of a prophet, but it certainly was 
not the sound judgment of a statesman. He was speaking of the time 
when the entire world, advanced to a higher civilization, will have 
given in its adherence to the brotherhood of man. But, unfortunately, 
we have not arrived at that glorious period of co.smopolitanism. "NYe 
are still struggling in the days of nationalism. The policy of the nations 
of the earth is against cosmopolitanism and in favor of upholding their 
own industries and their own people to the exclusion of all others with 
whom they are either unwilling or unable to compete. 

I do not wonder that the gentleman gave vent to a burst of eloquence 
when he spoke of that glorious epoch to which he looks forward when 
he said that the whispering waves that break upon the sands of the 
seashore speak freedom—when he told us that the winds that whistle 
around the eaves of the farmer’s dwelling in the West speak freedom. 
Sir, nature proclaims peace and harmony, but unfortunately sin has 
planted discord and strife. 

The advance of humanity to complete accord with the teachings of 
the evangels and the lessons of nature has been slow but sure. Over the 
wastes and moors of degradation and poverty, up the flinty paths of suf¬ 
fering and martyrdom, besprinkled with blood, humanity has toiled 
through weary centuries of wrong and crime. It has not yet reached 
the universal brotherhood of which the gentleman from Ohio speaks. 
Mutual charity and reciprocal kindness must precede such catholic fra¬ 
ternity. While one nation goes armed, universal peace is impossible. 
National selfishness compels national protection. The unholy caste of 


0 


monarchy puts up harriers against complete social and mercantile in¬ 
tercourse with the free people of a republic. 

Sir, we are jpractical men; and we are compelled to deal in practical 
times with a practical question. I tell the gentleman from Ohio, in the 
light of every-day facts, that the people of the United States are not 
prepared to adopt his theories, and that free trade can not yet be ac¬ 
complished in this land by the voice of the American people. I, sir, 
am candid enough to confess in connection with what has been said by 
the illustrious statesman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Randall] that I 
am jealous of English influence, whether it is in the market or in the 
field or in the forum, in the social circle or the political Congress. 
And, sir, I am reminded that in another nation dominated by British 
power, which forced its trade upon those downtrodden people, com¬ 
pelling them to accept a debased currency and forbidding them to ex¬ 
port anything and compelling them to buy everything English—a great 
man arose in the majesty of his genius (I allude to Dean Swift) and in 
advising his countrymen to ostracize in the markets of the world British 
influence, gave vent to this memorable sentence: “My fellow-country¬ 
men, I would burn everything English except English coal.” And 
I know, sir, that there are millions of American citizens in this land 
who are as jealous of that influence as I am, and who would voice the 
sentiments which I do here to-day, could they be heard on the floor of 
this House. 

We have been told, sir, that this bill is a step toward free trade, and 
a panacea for the evils which this land is suffering. I do not be¬ 
lieve, and I have not been convinced, that this land is suffering alone 
from the evils of overprotection. When I look around and see the suf¬ 
fering millions of this land ground down by railroad monopolies, tel¬ 
egraph monopolies, imported pauper labor, extravagant and centralized 
government, and by iniquitous land laws, I am unwilling to concede 
that overprotection is the only evil and the only bane from which the 
American people are suffering. 

Seeing the zealous conduct of members here in advocating this meas¬ 
ure to the exclusion of every other method of redress for the evils 
against which the people are crying, one would almost be led to believe 
this to be the sum of all iniquities and the only disease of the body- 
politic. 

Why do not members of this House address themselves to other prac¬ 
tical reforms? When millions of free lands of the United States are 
being taken up by the acreocracy of Europe; when that public domain 
which is the foundation of our prosperity and the only hope for the per¬ 
petuity of this Republic is being taken up by foreign syndicates; when 
it is the duty of this House to pass a law that shall stop the London, 
the Scotch, and the other European companies from taking up the 
lands that belong to free Americans; when it is our duty to take back 
and make part of the public domain that immense acreage which be¬ 
longs to the American people, but which has been robbed from them 
by railroad corporations; when there are such things to be done for the 
laboring people; when bureaus are to be established; when labor is to 
be educated by correct figures and statistics; when conspiracy laws are 
to be repealed; when centralization is to be checked and Government 
reformed; when labor and capital are to be harmonized on just princi¬ 
ples ; when commerce between the States is to be regulated in the inter¬ 
est of the merchant and farmer; when a thousand evils are crying with 
a million tongues at the doors of this House, the only answer they can 


7 

get is that there is hut one evil from which we suffer, and that is the 
protective tariff. 

Millions are watching our course as to the public lands for the hun¬ 
dreds who are interested in radical tariff agitation. Free land for free 
men is more than free trade for men who can not buy and have not any¬ 
thing to sell. From the quaking castles of feudalism in Europe the bogus 
lords and masquerading marquises are hurrying to erect their robber 
holds on the free prairies of the West. If these invasions are not 
checked the American freeman farmer, noble, manly, and self-reliant, 
will soon give way to the cringing tenant of a transplanted lord. Tlie 
independent and intelligent freeholder is the hope of the Republic, and 
the Republic is founded upon a free soil, not shadowed by feudalism 
and not blighted by monopoly. The public domain is the heritage of 
our people; and no people can be happy, free, and prosperous who are 
not strongly intrenched on the soil they till. 

Sir, the action of these gentlemen reminds me of a false diagnosis of 
a physical disease. The patient comes to the physician suffering many 
evils, and he diagnoses the case simply to please a hobby or in the 
light of a specialty, and he offers him a universal panacea with the same 
effrontery and audacity that a quack vender of nostrums peddles his 
wares to the sound of a drum and an absurd eloquence. 

I have heard it said by members of this House that they have edu¬ 
cated their districts, that they have gone to Republican districts and 
planted this sentiment of truth and justice, as they call it. I tell 
them, sir, to-day, but I hope I am a false prophet, that the crop which 
they planted in the fall, when they were elected on free-trade princi¬ 
ples, w'as seed sown upon thin soil, and that when the storm shall beat 
upon it, when the scorching sun of this summer and the fatal frost of 
next November shall blight it, they will find they have made a great 
mistake. They have diverted the patient with the novelty of the rem¬ 
edy, but they have not eradicated the disease from which he suffers. 

I perceive by the clock my time is limited. I wish to say, so far as 
we of the Democratic party who are opposed to this bill are concerned, 
that we have no hesitation here to-day. We believe we are doing our 
duty to our country and to our people. We believe that we are advo¬ 
cating the cause of eternal truth and justice. We believe wx are up¬ 
holding the dignity of American labor, making stronger the Republic, 
and perpetuating a great and historic party. 

I know we will not be applauded in this hour of passion. I want no 
applause from that side of the Chamber. I do not court Republican 
smiles, but I wish to say, as a noble Virginian said when Cornwallis 
surrendered and the American Army, with bad taste, gave vent to 
cheers—I wish to say with the noble Virginian George Washington, who 
raised his hand in a deprecating attitude and said: “My countrymen, 
do not cheer; let posterity cheer. ” [Applause.] When the passions of 
this hour shall have subsided, when reason resumes her sway, the Dem¬ 
ocrats who vote against this bill will look with confidence for vindication 
from their countrymen and for the approbation of their party. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 


O 





A 


THE TARIFF. 


SPEECH 


HOS. MOSES A. McCOID, 

• 

OJT lOW^, 


IN THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


Monday, May 5, 1884. 


WASHINGTON. 

1884. 




. \ ^ 


t 

( 


f 


I 


4 




4 


V 


9 




# 

✓ 


• « 


k 


i 




✓ 





f 



'^^e 1^0 IT Ugi 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON. MOSES A. McCOIO. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5893) to reduce import duties and 
war-tariff taxes— 

Mr. McCOID said: 

Mr. Chairman : This seems to me a most unnatural strife. Here we 
have a government instituted for the purpose of securing the happiness 
and welfare of its people; a government, not foreign, but of the people; 
not by any man or number of men over us, but by the people; not for the 
world, or Europe, or England, or any other, but for us. We have incor¬ 
porated ourselves with powers which we ourselves execute for our good. 

We asserted our political independence of the world, framed the 
charter by which we should work, ran up our flag to the unmastered 
winds, started the action of the organs of national life and were mapped 
as one of the independent nations of the world. Political independence 
quickly asserted had to be fought out with heroic courage, and must 
be defended with jealousy and care and will ever depend much in its 
substance upon that other condition of commercial independence. 

The map of the world show's that the dream of political independence 
without the fact of commercial independence is soon and easily dispelled, 
and is at best “nothing but a dream.” The one is necessarj' to the 
other. No nation commercially dependent upon another can be politi¬ 
cally free. Therefore the first aspiration of a patriot whose country 
has asserted its independence is to see it commercially independent. 
The debates of the early Congresses are full of the expressions of this 
sentiment, and I need not quote them here. But this state of commer¬ 
cial independence is reached only by slow' and encouraged growth. A 
country can not leap full armed. Minerva-like, to it. 

This is especially true of a country like ours of vast extent and infi¬ 
nite, unexplored resources. It must pass through its infancy, its growth, 
its development, to its full possession of native strength. And this 
I suspect is the better understanding of the oft-repeated phrase ‘ ‘ in¬ 
fant industries”—industries in an undeveloped country. As long as 
we have our undeveloped mines, our unplanted factories, and our un¬ 
consumed products, we are in our infancy and will require the same 
commercial protection, encouragement, development, as the state of in¬ 
fancy ever demands. I have noticed the natural division in the debates 
of this and last Congress of our commercial industries into producing, 
manufacturing, and shipping industries. And I have noticed to what 
fallacies and follies gentlemen are led when they confine themselves to 
any one and antagonize it to others. 

These interests are all one. They are correlated and dependent on each 
other. There is the physical, the mental, and the spiritual, but they 
make up but one man. Each is dependent on the other, and the correct 
development is of all three together. The time taken from one and 
given to the other is not lost, but results in the improvement and good 



4 


ol all. You may say you tax the one to help the other, or you deii}^ the 
one to ^ive to the other, or you use the one to protect, encourage, and 
strengthen the other; hut the result is a well-developed, well-balanced, 
and well-proportioned man. 

Is there any antagonism between the three great industries into which 
the labor of our people may be classed ? It is true that agriculture is 
pre-eminently our staple, but does it not depend u^jon and lead to man¬ 
ufacturing and prosper and flourish with it, and does this not lead to 
shipping and trade. No wise farmer should sell his produce, but feed it 
and consume it and sell the second product. No wise nation or people 
incorporated in government should sell their raw product, but manu¬ 
facture it, consume it, and sell the resultant article. The proper subr 
ject of trade and free'trade is manufacture, and when aj)eople can con¬ 
sume their own products in their home industries and only yield them 
to trade, when they can fix their price beyond that which it will bring 
at home, then and then only are they commercially free, and then and 
then onl}" should they be free-traders. 

The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hukd] illustrated this, and to my 
mind defeated his whole argument by the admission that Liverpool 
fixed the price of all that the American farmer had to sell. He had 
just shown that the power to fix the price of labor was the j)Ower to 
enslave. I turn his illustration back upon him, using as near as I can 
his own language. The American farmer works a day and produces 
what in a fair home market should bring a dollar, with which he would 
bxiy some needed article. He brings it to the market. But there he 
is told that the price of his day’s labor, of all that he has put into it 
of his hopes and his fears and earnest toil, is fixed in Liverpool, and 
Liverpool has decreed that he should have for it but 50 cents. And 
so he goes back, toils another day, and puts the care, and hope, and 
fear of another day into it to get the other half of his dollar. That 
second day is a da}’- of slavery. 

Liverpool might as well have waked him up in the morning with the 
lash and driven him in bondage throxrgh that day for it. It was to him 
a day of slavery—a day of unrequited toil. And he is in bondage to 
whom? Not to a law of his own making; not to a power of his own 
choice; not to^the interest of his own country, his land, or his own con¬ 
tinent. He is in bondage to a power separated from him by seas, un¬ 
sympathizing, grasping, and tyrannical. He is the serf of a power he 
and his fathers have vainly tried to throw off. If he is to be in slavery 
to one who shall have the power to fix the price of his labor he would 
rather choose his master, and choose him here. Why, sir, if the argu¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hurd] was "true it might not 
be a strange spectacle to see a patriot enduring sacrifices in the accom¬ 
plishment of the noble purpose of building up and enriching and glori¬ 
fying their own country. For objects like these men have gladly given 
their fortunes and their lives. But who would choose the shameful 
bondage to a, foreign power and commercial tyrant, out of which could 
come alone the increasing disgrace and dependence of his country ? 

Now, sir, it appears to me that our true national policy is to deter¬ 
mine that the day shall come when the price of our products shall not 
be fixed at Liverpool, when we shall consume our own and dictate the 
price of that which we choose to sell abroad; that, attendant upon our 
great agricultural industry, we will build up manufacturing and every 
other variety of productive interests which our abundant resources will 
sustain, so that we can have within our borders our own markets; and 
that, attendant on all these, we will reach out with shipping facilities 


under the patronage of Government aid and flush the markets of the 
world. And then we will have reached the summum honum of our 
friends, free trade. We will have reached that freedom of commerce as 
England has reached it so far as she has adopted it. We will have 
reached it in the only way by which it can be reached and at the same 
time maintain our commercial independence. 

I believe in the principle that our commerce should be free, as free 
as the policy of nations will permit. But I believe that the policy of 
our nation, practiced by the States before the Union, and at the time 
of the adoption of the Constitution, acknowledged as a consideration of 
the federation adopted by our fathers in the first Congress and practiced 
every since, is to except from that general principle in ever}" case where 
our national interests demand it. These exceptions are founded upon 
considerations of the rights of States, our commercial defense, the 
development of our domestic resources, the necessity to diversify our 
industries, the raising of revenue, the protection of our labor, &c. 

To do this the power to lay impost duties on imports was given to the 
the National Legislature. And it is to be used for the promotion of 
these interests, in order that our country may grow up to that state of 
commercial independence where, freed from these conditions of infancy 
and strong enough to cope with the competitors, it can adopt commer¬ 
cial freedom. 

The great question is now upon us, how shall we best develop the 
material prosperity of the Southern and Western States? The loyalty 
and sympathetic unity of these vast areas of territory to the Union is 
closely allied to that of their development under the generous policies 
of the General Government. If antagonisms ever arise in this country 
again it will be over these policies. 

I believe this material development can only come through a wisely 
adjusted system of protection in the especial interest of agricultural 
industries. I believe that there is sound economical philosophy in the 
doctrine that the prosperity of agriculture must come through diversi¬ 
fication of industries in producing areas of land, by which a large pro¬ 
portion of non-agricultural people may be secured to them. 

This principle and its results are so well stated and illustrated in Re¬ 
port No. 3 of 1883 of the Agricultural Department, pages 22 and follow¬ 
ing, such as I have marked, that I feel justified in inserting them here: 

To test the value of this hypothesis let us divide the States aud Territories of 
the United States into four classes, the first having less than 30 per cent, engaged 
in agriculture; second, those with 30 and less than 50 per cent.; third, those 
with 50 and less than 70 per cent., and fourth, those having 70 per cent, and over, 
being almost exclusively agidcultural States. 

VALUE OF LANDS. 


Applying this test to the value of lands, the following result is obtained: 


o 

(li 

o 

States and 
Territories. 

Farms. 

Value. 

Value per 
i acre. 

i 

! Workers in 
j agriculture. 

i 

No. 

Acres. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Perct. 

First class. .15 

77,250,742 

2,985,641,197 

38 65 

18 

Second class. 13 

112,321,257 

3,430,915,767 

30 55 

42 

Third class.| 13 

237,873,040 

3,212,108,970 

13 53 

58 

Fourth class. 6 

108,636, 796 

562,430.842 

5 18 

'i 4 














G 





As the proportion of agricultural to other workers diminishes the value of 
laud increases, but in a much higher ratio. In the almost exclusively agricult¬ 
ural States eight acres are worth little more than one in the first class, consist- 
















































ing of States of the largest non-agricniltural population. In the class which 
averages 42 per cent, in agriculture the land is of more than twice the value of 
farms in the class which averages 58 per cent, of the people in rural employ¬ 
ments. 

The following States and Territories all have less than 30 per cent, of their ag¬ 
gregate of persons in all occupations engaged in the pursuits of agriculture, and 
they average but 18 per cent.: 


States and Territories. 

Farms. 

Value. 

Value 

per 

acre. 

Workers 
in agi'i- 
culture. 


Acres. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Per 

cent. 

District of Columbia. 

18,146 

3,632,403 

200 

18 


2 

Massachusetts. 

3,359,079 

146,197,415 

43 

52 


9 

Rhode Island. 

514,813 

25,882,079 

50 

27 


9 

Colorado. 

1,165,373 

25,109,223 

21 

55 


13 

Nevada. 

530,862 

5,408,325 

10 

19 


13 

Arizona. 

135,573 

l,12f, 946 

8 

32 


15 

New" Jersey. 

2,929,773 

190, 895,833 

65 

16 


15 

Wyoming. 

124,433 

835,895 

6 

72 


18 

Connecticut . 

2,453,541 

121,063,910 

49 

34 


18 

Montana. 

4a5,683 

3,234,504 

7 

97 


20 

New" York. 

23,780,754 

1,056,176,741 

44 

41 


20 

Penn.svlvania... 

19,791,341 

975,689,410 

49 

30 


21 

California. 

16,593,742 

262,051,282 

15 

79 


21 

Idaho. 

327,798 

2,832,890 

8 

64 


25 

Maryland. 

5,119,831 

165,503,341 

1 

32 

33 


28 

Total. 

77,250,742 

2,985,641,197 

38 65 

18 


In this list the most diverse conditions are represented. On one extreme the 
District of Columbia has but 18,146 acres of agricultural land,Mdiich is valued at 
$200 per acre as suburban property under the shadow of a large city. On the 
other, small areas in the Territories are surrounded by immense bodies of un¬ 
occupied lands, which are given away by the United States Government, keep¬ 
ing the prices of cultivated farms low, though they are rising with great rapidity. 
California and Colorado are similarly situated, yet further advanced in point of 
time and in development of industries, and of course showing higher prices. In 
the States in which there is no public land to depress prices there is no average 
that is not higher than the general average of the next class of States having 30 
to 50 per cent, in agricultiu-e; the range of prices is from $32.33 per acre in Mary¬ 
land to $65.16 in New Jersey. Thougli New Jersey has 15 per cent, in agriculture, 
the influence of the adjacent populations of Philadelphia, New York, and Brook¬ 
lyn reduces practically her perceritage to a lower proportion than Massachu¬ 
setts and Rhode Island. 

The second class includes the smaller manufacturing States of the East and the 
older States of the West, in which the agricultural population is less than half 
of all. 


States and Territories. 

Farms. 

Value. 

■ 

Value 

per 

acre.* 

Workers 
in agri¬ 
culture. 

New Hampshire. 

Delaw"are. 

New" Mexico... 

Maine.... 

Utah. 

Ohio..*. 

Oregon. 

Wa.shington. 

Michigan. 

Illinois. 

Wisconsin. 

Vermont. 

Dakota. 

Total.. 

Acres. 

3,721,173 
1,090,245 
631,131 
6,552,578 
655,524 
24,529,226 
4,214,712 
1,409, 421 
13,807,240 
31,673,645 
15,353,118 
4,882,588 
3,800, 656 

Dollars. 

75,834,389 
36,789,672 
5,514,399 
102,357,615 
14,015,178 
1,127,497, a53 
56,908,575 
13,844,222 
499,103,181 
1,009,594,580 
357,709,507 
109,316,010 
22,401,084 

Dollars. 

20 38 
33 74 

8 74 
15 62 

21 38 
45 97 
13 50 

9 82 
36 15 
31 87 
23 30 

22 40 

5 89 

Per cent. 

31 ^ 

33 

35 

35 

36 

40 

40 

42 

42 

44 

47 

47 

49 

112,321,257 

3,430,915,765 

30 55 

42 


* Average, 




























































8 


This list embraces also a few of the Territories, and a State or two in which 
the unoccupied public lands continue to depress prices of farm lands. 

It is conceded that differing degrees of fertility must affect prices, and other 
causes may be operative; yet such is the controlling force of preponderating 
non-agricultural population in raising prices that we find the average of this 
class to be more than 25 per cent, lower than class first. 

When the proportion of farmers is increased to half or two-thirds the price of 
land declines seriously, as follows : 


States. 

Farms. 

Value. 

Value 

per 

acre. 

Workers 
in agri¬ 
culture. 

• 

Acres. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Per cent. 

Virginia. 

19,835,785 

216,028,107 

10 

89 

51 

Missouri. 

27,879,276 

375,633,307 

13 

47 

51 

Minnesota. 

13,403,019 

193,724,260 

14 

45 

52 

Indiana. T. 

20,420,983 

635,236, 111 

31 

11 

52 

Louisiana. 

8,273,506 

58,989,117 

7 

13 

57 

Iowa. 

24,752,700 

567,430,227 

22 

92 

57 

Nebraska.. 

9,944,826 

105,932,541 

10 

65 

59 

West Virginia. 

10,193,779 

133,147,175 

13 

06 

61 

Kentucky. 

21,495,240 

299,298,631 

13 

92 

62 

Florida. 

3,297,324 

20,291,835 

6 

15 

64 

Kansas . 

21,417,468 

2.35.178,936 

10 

98 

64 

Tennessee. 

20,666,915 

206,749,837 

10 

00 

66 

Texas . 

36,292,219 

170,468,886 

4 

70 

69 

Total. 

237,873,040 

3,218,108,970 

13 52 

58 


The States ha%'ing over 70 per cent, engaged in agriculture are as follows: 


States. 

Farms. 

Value. 

Value 

per 

acre. 

Workers 
in agri¬ 
culture. 

Georgia. 

Aci'es. 

26,043,282 
22,363,558 
13,457,613 
18,855,334 
15,855,462 
12,061,547 

Dollars. 
111,910,540 
135,793,602 
68,677,482 
78,954,648 
92,844,915 
74,249,655 

Dollars. 

4 30 

6 07 

5 10 

4 19 

5 86 

6 16 

Per cent. 
72 
75 
75 
77 
82 
83 

North Carolina. 

South Carolina. 

Alabama . 

Mississippi. 

Arkansas. 

Total. 

108,636,796 

562,430,842 

5 18 

77 






























































1 ) 


Diagram of value of products as affected by increase of non-agricultural population 



r 




























































10 


INCOME OF THE FARMER. 

The ownei' of land finds a great advantage in the increase of the proportions, 
of non-agricultural population. Does the cultivator of the soil obtain an annual 
product of higher value ? The answer is an emphatic affirmative in the follow¬ 
ing statement from the census of 1880: 


Classes. 

be 

d . 

S 

be 3 
« o 

1 

Products of ag- j 

riculture. ! 

j 

i 

' 1 

Value per 
j capita. 

Workers in ag- { 

•riculture. 1 


Number. 

Dollars. 

DoUs. 

Per ct. 

First class. 

1,060,681 

484,770,797 

457 

18 

Second class. 

1,566,875 

616,850,959 

394 

42 

Third class. 

3, 017,971 

786, 681,420 

261 

58 

Fourth class. 

2,024,966 

324,237,751 

160 

77 


There are nearly twice as many agricultural producers in the fourth cla.ss as 
are found in the first, yet the crops of the million are worth much more money 
than all the results of labor of the 2,000,000 workers. The class that has 58 per 
cent, in agriculture makes SlOl per annum more than that which has 77 per cent., 
and the class with the lower average of 42 per cent, gets S133 above the earn¬ 
ings of that which averages 58 per cent, in agriculture. 

It is not assumed that there are no other causes affecting the quantity and 
value of the farmer’s crops which cause variations in the exhibit of individual 
States, but the relative proportions of agricultural and non-agricultural popula¬ 
tion constitute a factor which dominates all other factors, so that when such 
data are co-ordinate in classes of States the result appears with the invariability 
of the operation of law. That all these variations may be seen and the causes - 
sought by the rural economist, the following details are given: 


States and Territories. 

Persons in all 
occupations. 

Persons in ag¬ 
riculture. 

^ Per cent, in 
! agriculture. 

Products o1 
agriculture. 

Value per 
capita. 

District of Columbia. 

66,624 

1,464 

2 

$514,441 

$351 

Massachusetts. 

720,774 

64,973 

9 

24,160,881 

372 

Rhode Island. 

116,979 

10,945 

9 

3.670,135 

335 

Colorado. 

101,251 

13,539 

13 

5,035,228 

372 

Nevada. 

32,233 

4,180 

13 

2, $55,449 

683 

Arizona. 

22,271 

3,435 

15 

614,327 

179 

New Jersey. 

396,879 

59,214 

15 

29,650,756 

501 

Wyoming. 

8,884 

1,639 

18 

372,391 

227 

Connecticut. 

241,333 

44,026 

18 

18,010,075 

409 

Montana. 

22,255 

4,513 

20 

2,024,923 

449 

New York. 

1,884,645 

377,460 

20 

178,025,695 

472 

Pennsylvania. 

1,456,067 

301,112 

21 

129,760,476 

431 

California. 

376,505 

79,396 

21 

59,721,425 

752 

Idaho. 

15,578 

3, 858 

25 

1,515,314 

395 

Marvland. 

324,432 

90,927 

28 

28,839,281 

317 

Total. 

5,786,710 

1,060,681 

18 

484,770,797 

457 


The largest income is enjoyed by the farmer of California, not only because 
79 per cent, of the people of that State are outside of agriculture, making a mar¬ 
ket for his crops, but because of the demand throughout the United States ffir 
fruits, wines, and other peculiar products of that favored State. Wool is also a 
productive source of income, due to the market made by the woolen mills of 
other States. 






















































V 


11 


Only in Oregon and Illinois, in the second class, are rural incomes up to the 
average of the first <;lass, and only in New Mexico and Dakota are the annual 
earnings down to the average of the third class, so uniform is the action of this 
principle of industrial economy. 


States and Territories. 

. 

Persoiis in all 

occupations. i 

Persons in ag¬ 

riculture. ! 

i 

Per cent, in ag- j 
ricvilture. | 

\ 

Pi'oducts of ag¬ 

riculture. 

1 

Value perl 

capita. 1 

Ncav Hampshire. 

142,468 

44,490 

31 

$13,474,330 

$303 

Delaware.. 

54,580 

17,849 

33 

6,320, 345 

354 

Ncav Mexico. 

40,822 

14,139 

36 

1,897,974 

134 

Maine . 

231,993 

82,130 

35 

21,945,489 

267 

Utah. 

40,055 

14,550 

36 

3,337,410 

229 

Ohio. 

994,475 

397,495 

40 

156,777,152 

394 

Oregon. 

67,343 

27,091 

40 

13,234,548 

489 

Washington. 

30,122 

12,781 

42 

4,212,750 

330 

Michigan. 

569,204 

240,319 

42 

91,159,858 

379 

Illinois... 

999,780 

436,371 

44 

203,980,137 

467 

Wisconsin. 

417,455 

195,901 

47 

72,779,496 

372 

Vermont. 

118,584 

55, 251 

47 

22,082,656 

400- 

Dakota. 

57,844 

28,508 

49 

5, 648, 814 

198 

Total. 

3,764,725 

1,566,875 

42 

616,850,959 

394 


In the almost exclusively agricultural States the range of income per man is 
quite uniform, from $140 in South Carolina to $202 in Arkansas, the average of 
all being $160. It may be claimed that labor, from climate,or race considerations, is 
less efficient than in other States, but it is evident from the small areas planted, 
except in cotton and corn, and the small products gathered, that the lack of di¬ 
versity in industry, and even of variety in agriculture, is dwarfing the magnifi¬ 
cent resources of this great belt of States. The wisest and brightest of these 
farmers have reiterated this sentiment for a generation, and many are acting on 
it: but the reflex influence of manufactures and mininf would accomulish more 
for agriculture than the most persistent direct efforts for the improvement of 
agriculture. 


States. 

Persons in all 
occupations. 

Persons in ag¬ 
riculture. 

Per cent, in ag- 
j riculture. 

Products of ag¬ 
riculture. 

1 

.. _ ! 

Value per cap¬ 
ita. 1 

Georgia. 

597,862 

432,204 

72 

$67,028, 929 

$155 

North Carolina. 

480,187 

360,937 

75 

51,729,611 

143 

South Carolina. 

392,102 

294,602 

75 

41,108,112 

140 

Alabama. 

492,790 

380,630 

77 

56, 872,994 

149 

Mississippi. 

415,506 

329,938 

82 

63,701,844 

187 

Arkansas.. . 

260,692 

216,655 

83 

43,796,261 

202 

Total. 

2,639,139 

2,024, 966 

77 

324,237,751 

160 


t 
























































12 


In the following' list Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska lead in average income. 
They have below GD per cent, in agriculture, have rich lands, easily cultivated, 
and send a large proportion of their products to Eastern and foreign markets, 
and therefore have less of the .stagnation of isolation. 


States. 

1 

1 

Persons in all 

occupations. 

i 

Persons in ag¬ 

riculture. ; 

Per cent, in ' 
agriculture. 

1 

P r o d u c t s of 

agriculture. 

! 

1 

1 Value p e r 

! capita. 

Virginia. 

494,240 

2.54,069 

51 

$45,726,221 

$180 

Missouri. 

692,959 

3;55,297 

51 

95,912,660 

270 

Minnesota. 

255,125 

131,5.35 

52 

49, 468,951 

376 

Indiana. 

635,080 

331,240 

52 

114,707,082 

346 

Louisiana. 

363,228 

205,306 

57 

42,883,522 

209 

Iowa. 

528,302 

303,5.57 

57 

1.36,103,473 

448 

Nebraska.. 

152,614 

90,507 

59 

31,708,914 

350 

West Virginia. 

176,199 

107, 578 

61 

19,360,049 

180 

Kentucky. 

519,854 

320,571 

62 

63,850,155 

199 

Florida. 

91,536 

58,731 

64 

7,439,392 

126 

Kan.sas. 

322,285 

206,080 

64 

.52,240,361 

253 

Tennessee.. 

447,970 

294,1.53 

66 

62,076, .311 

211 

Texas. 

522,133 

359,317 

69 

65,204,329 

181 

Total. 

5,201,525 

3,017,971 

58 

786,681,420 

261 


WAGES OF EABOR. 

Having shown that the value of the farm and the income of the farmer are 
enlarged by increasing the proportion of non-agricultural laborers in a State, it 
is impoi-tant to inquire whether the farm laborer shares in the advantage to the 
owjier and cultivator of the soil. Fortunately a definite answer can be given 
from repeated and trustworthy returns of the wages of farm labor to the Depart¬ 
ment of Agriculture. 

In 1870, when wages and prices generally were high, the average wages of 
farm labor in the lii’stor manufacturing class of States was S34, while in the last, 
exclusively agricultural class, it was but $15. When the panic came, and years 
of manufacturing depre.ssion followed, nrechanics and artisans competed with 
farm laborers and reduced the price of rural labor. It is a fact that prices at 
different times furnish an accurate measure both of the indu.strial status of the 
laborers and the prosperity of the great industries of the country. 

In 1882 the wages of agricultural labor averaged nearly $25 in the fir.st and 
second class, $19.50 in the third, and $13.20 in the fourth. The demand for 
wheat and corn, beef and pork, the product of Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wiscon¬ 
sin, and other States of the second class, to supply home, eastern, and foreign 
markets, brought up the value of farm labor to an equality with wages in the 
States of the first class. The scarcity of laborers, who prefer farms of their own, 
also contributed to high i-ates in this class. Where more than half of the work¬ 
ers are farmers, the competition of laborers reduces inevitably the rate of 
wages. So we find that where the proportion reaches three-fourths, the reduc¬ 
tion usually amounts to 50 per cent. 

The influence of manufacturers, of mining, of any productive industries on 
local prices, whether of farms or farm products or farm labor, is plainly trace¬ 
able in States and in various districts within the States by the furnace fires, 
the mines, the factories that thickly dot the location where high prices for farm 
labor prevail. 

The diagrams illustrate in a striking manner the operation of what may be 
deemed a law in industrial economy, and show that the value of farm land.s de¬ 
pends more upon the diversification of industry than upon the fertility of the 
soil, and that the farmer’s income is highest where farmers are fewest. 

*If, then, national prosperity as exhibited in projierty values, in in¬ 
come, and in prices of labor is demonstrated to dej)end on diversi¬ 
fied industries in States, how shall this result be secured? Let every 
State look about for the natural resources within her borders in which 
these industries may be founded. Encourage them, invite capital to 






























13 


them, and present their claims to the General Government for protec¬ 
tion against hostile foreign competition. Let the General Government 
meet these demands upon correct principles. 

Whenever we can by encouragement develop resources and establish 
factories here which can supply us the article, in a healthy home com¬ 
petition, cheaper than foreign manufacturers can sell it, it is our duty 
to discriminate in order to do so. Now, that is a matter of fair discus¬ 
sion in which we must consider our resources, their abundance and char¬ 
acter, &c. Again when we know that we can not produce . sufficient 
for our demand of any article, but may by encouraging the establish¬ 
ment of factories, compel importers to sell cheaper than they otherwise 
will, it is our interest to do so. 

31 r. Chairman, what we want is a reasonable, fair adjustment of 
the tariff from the standpoint of national interests. We do not want 
to do it for the special benetit of any particular locality, but broadly 
for all. If this Congress had undertaken to reduce the revenue and 
refdrm and equalize the tariff as a business Congress, I should have 
heartily supported that effort so far as I could see that it was wisely 
done. 

The most absolute and accursed folly of this whole question is the 
wicked use of it by the Democratic party as a political question in order 
to get themselves into power. 

The adjustment of a tariff is a business question. It is a question of 
detail, and the policy, necessity, and propriety of the duty comes up on 
each article as an independent question. It is then a question of rev¬ 
enue, of the relation it bears to our labor, our resources, our industries, 
our defense, and our ultimate commercial prosperity. 3Vhen you take 
up the subjects of glass, iron, salt, wool, lumber, horses, wheat, meats, 
liquors, sugar, cotton, they should be handled in a patriotic, business 
way, with a view to raise our revenue and equally distribute our tax 
for it, and at the same time to wisely maintain our American interests. 

Sir, I think a Presidential year is not a favorable time to do this. It is 
our political year and not given to business. I think the mistake of 
action now is illustrated by this bill. There was not time to enter 
upon a careful revision and adjustment of inequalities before the cam¬ 
paign, and evidently our Democratic friends wanted to do something to 
make an issue and do it soon, and from necessity took this method. 

I think it would have been better to have waited until the work 
could be wisely and carefully done. There are times when this method 
would perhaps be justifiable, but no such necessity exists now. And 
in my judgment the inequalities of the present adjustment of the tariff 
would rather be increased than cured by this bill. I think we ought not 
to have a surplus in the Treasury. The revenue should never exceed 
the actual demands of Government. We are disappointed to find that 
the revision of the tariff last year did not make a greater reduction of 
revenue. But would this? Gentlemen on that side say not. Experi¬ 
ence teaches that it would not. It would be better to take up the items 
from which our redundant revenue comes and provide for a reduction 
there. 

3Ir. Chairman, I seek no political advantage from the success or de¬ 
feat of this bill. I would not detract from the great reputation of its 
author or reflect upon his earnestness or ability. Both are well-known 
and recognized. 

If a measure like this was in my judgment wise and I felt that it 
would be of benefit to the country, I should be glad to support the dis- 


tinguished gentleman from Illinois in it. Bnt I do not believe the 
good results which he anticipates would follow it. 

I regard this as a question of national concern, to the consideration 
of which we should come as one people against the outside world, and 
which we should settle with that high and lofty spirit of patriotism 
which animated our fathers. The policy which we adopt should not 
be a local or .sectional one, but a broad and national one. The inter¬ 
ests of Massachusetts and all New England, with her whirling wheels of 
tireless toil, are our interests; the interests of New York, New Jersey, 
and Pennsylvania, with her flaming forges, are our concern; the inter¬ 
ests of the States that circle down the Appalachian range and bathe in 
the tides of the surrounding seas or which shock their golden grain in 
the fertile valleys of the Mississippi and its great tree of tributaries are 
ours; and the fortunes of the regions of richer ores on either side of the 
snowy Sierras and away yonder to the Puget Sound are as much to us 
-as the fortune of the pleasant valley where from the porch of cottage 
homes we take in view those familiar signs of civilization—the modest 
school-house, the spired church, the bell-towered college, and the domed 
temple of j ustice. It stretches out before us, one exhilarating panorama, 
one common country, whose every interest is our own, whose highest 
welfare is our dearest wish. 




Public Buildin^r at Cliattanoogra, Tenn.—Against the Present 
Extravagant System of Appropriations for' 

Public Buildings. 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON. LOUIS E. MoCOMAS, 

w 

OF MARYLAND, 

In the House of Eepresentatives, 


Thursday, April 10, 1884. 


The House being: in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union and 
having under consideration the bill (H. R. 1484) for the erection of a public 
building at Chattanooga, Tenn.— 

Mr. McCOMAS said: 

Mr. Chairm:.4.n: I desire to say a word in opposition to the class of 
bills which are included in this long catalogue of bills reported favor¬ 
ably from the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, aggregating 
$6,068,000 so far as heard from in the bills in this House, and about 
$3,000,000 in bills passed by the Senate and now on the Speaker’s table. 

I am aware” that some of the Senate bills are duplicates of those re¬ 
ported by the House committee, but the total makes a sum of at least 
$8,000,000 to be expended for purposes which, so far as I can satisfy < 
my judgment as a Representative, do not warrant the expenditure, es¬ 
pecially when it is to be made with insufficient opportunity for consid¬ 
eration and without any prior investigation; for the partial and rose¬ 
ate statements of the member from the district seeking the aid of the 
National Government is after all the argument of the advocate. The 
report of the member as a subcommittee is rather a restatement of this 
appeal than a thorough investigation, and the favorable report of the 
committee, whose manifold public duties prevent a thorough inquiry, is 
only the result they reach by conjecture upon the data they can obtain. 

The gentlemen who compose this committee in respect of character 
and capacity are the peers of any on this floor, but they inherit a method 
which is execrable, inadequate, and which ought to be reformed. In 
1862 when Congress appropriated but $6,000 for public buildings no evil 
results could follow. A committee sitting at the Capitol had time to 
inform itself when its inquiry was limited to several buildings proposed 
in one or two States. But what shall be said in favor of such a method 
for a committee which can only afford a couple of hours each week 




2 


wherein it is compelled to pass upon applications for hundreds of build¬ 
ings in all the States and Territories of this country, hearing only state¬ 
ments in favor of the application, having no reports of engineers or archir 
tects and without the inspection for which many of the paid special 
agents of the Government or the paid officers of its Army or Depart¬ 
ments might be made responsible. 

In times of peace when Congress and the people find a large surplus 
revenue at hand, the most insidious temptation to extravagance, the sit¬ 
uation portrayed in this table is the legitimate result of such a faulty 
method. 

Bills on the Calendar of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union, reported from the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. 

H. R. 1458 (Report 64), for a public buildinj? at Greenville, S. C. $50,000 

H. R. 337 (Report 65), to provide for the construction of a public build¬ 
ing at New Albany, Ind. 100,000 

H. R. 1339 (Report 111*), to increase the appropriation for the erection 

of the public building at Pittsburgh. Pa. 1,500,000 

H. R. 1484 (Report 112), for the erection of a public building at Chatta¬ 
nooga, Tenn.. 100,000 

H. R. 702 (Report 114), for the erection of a public building in the city 

of Augusta, Me. $150,000 

H. R. 1415 (Report 128*), to amend an act entitled “An act to provide a 
building for the use of the United States circuit and district courts 
of the United States, the post-office, internal-revenue offices, and other 
Government offices at Erie, Pa.,” and making an additional appro¬ 
priation therefor. 100,000 

H. R. 441 (Report 129*), for the cojnpletion of a public building at Coun¬ 
cil Bluffs, Iowa. 100,000 

H. R. 4385 (Report 184), for the erection of a public building at Augusta, 

Ga. 200,000 

H. R. 162 (Report 213), for the erection of a public building at Macon, 

Ga. 125,000 

H. R. 190 (Report 214*), to authorize the purchase of additional grounds 
for the United States court-house and post-office building at Spring- 

field, Ill. 26,000 

H. R. 38 (Report 215), to provide for a building for the use of the Fed- ' 

eral court, post-office, internal-revenue, and other civil offices, and a 

United States jail, in the city of Fort Smith, Ark. 250,000 

H. R. 1321 (Report 340), for the erection of a’ public building at Read¬ 
ing, Pa. 80,000 

H. R. 4979 (Report 341), to provide for the improvement and enlarge¬ 
ment of the publie building at Richmond, Va. 75,000 

H. R. 3716 (Report364), for the erection of a public building at Saratoga 

Spririgs, N. Y. 200,000 

H. R. 4989 (Report 366), for the erection of a public building at Carson 

City, Nev. 100,000 

H. R. 483 (Report 388), for the erection of a public building at Keokuk, 

Iowa. 150,000 

IT. R. 3315 (Report 389), for the ei-ection of a public building at Pater¬ 
son, N. J. 80,000 

H. R. 2912 (Report 390), for the erection of a publie building at La 

Crosse, Wis. 100,000 

H. R. 3.593 (Report 391), for the erection of a public building at Chicago, 

Ill.;. 50,000 

H. R. 1013 (Report 436), for the erection of a public building at Ti-oy, 

N. Y.. 200,000 

H. R. 5264 (Report 441), for the erection of a public building at Lancas¬ 
ter, Pa. 100,000 

H. R. 2949 (Report 442), for the erection of a public building at Port 

Townsend, Wash;. 57,000 

H. R. 870 (Report 44.3), to provide for the erection of a public building 
at Aberdeen, Miss., for use as a post-office. United States court, and 
for United States internal-revenue officials, and for other Government 

purposes. 75,000 

H. R. 5672 (Report 630), for the erection of a public building at Wil¬ 
mington, Del. 150 000 

H. R. 805 (Report 631), to provide for the construction of a public build¬ 
ing at Jackson, in the State of Michigan. 75,000 






























3 


•4 

Ki 

V 







H.R. 5673 (Report 632), for the ereetion of a public building at Sacra¬ 
mento, Cal.. 100,000 

H. R. 1570 (Report 633), for the erection of a public building at Waco, 

Tex. 100,000 

H. R. 5674 (Report 634), for the erection of a public building at the city 

of Tyler, in the State of Texas. 50,000 

H. R. 848 (Report 734), to provide for the erection of a public building 

in the city of Duluth, State of Minnesota. . 100,000 

H. R. 5693 (Report 736), for the erection of a public building at Akron, 

Ohio. 100,000 

S. 229 (Report 1058), to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to erect 

a public building in the city of Key West, Fla. 100,000 

H. R. 707 (Report 1059), to provide for the erection of a public building 

at the town of Iloulton, Me. 50,000 

H. R. 6410 (Report 1060), for the erection of a public building at Char¬ 
lotte, N. C. 75,000 

H. R. 6411 (Report 1061), to provide for the selection of a site and erec¬ 
tion of a new public building at Detroit, Mich. 900,000 

H. R. 6412 (Report 1062), to amend chapter 464 of the first session of the 
Forty-seventh Congress, entitled “An act to provide for a public 

building at the city of Fort Wayne, in the State of Indiana ”.< 50,000 

H. R. 1618 (Report 1063), to provide for the construction of a court-house 
and post-office at Clarksburg, W. Va. 50,000 


6,068,000 


S. 233*, an act providing for the enlargement and improvement of the 
post-office, custom-house, and eourt-house at New Haven, Conn.... 50,000 

S. 52, an act providing for the erection of a public building, at Waco, 

Tex. 100,000 

S. 53, an act providing for a public building at San Antonio, Tex. 200,000 

S. 55, an act to provide for the ereetion of a public building for the use 
of the United States courts, post-office, and other Government offices 

in the city of Carson City, in the State of Nevada. 100,000 

S. 78, an act for the erection of a public building at La Crosse, Wis. 100,000 

S. 146, an act for a public building at Greenville, S. C. 50,000 

S. 147, an act to authorize the purchase of a site for a building for a 
post-office, court-house, and other public offices in San Francisco, Cal. 350,000 
S. 160, an act for the erection of a public building at Camden, N. J.. 75,000 

S. 235, an act to provide for the erection of a public building in the city 

of Augusta, Me...-. 150,000 

S. 256, an act to provide fora building for the use of the Federal court, 
post-office, internal-revenue, and other civil offices, and a United 

States jail, in the city of Fort Smith, Ark. 100,000 

S. 292, an act for the erection of a public building at Fort Scott, Kans 100,000 

S. 396, an act for the erection of a public building at Nebraska City, Nebr. 75,000 

S. 505, an act for the erection of a public building at Huntsville, Ala.. 100,000 
S. 574, an act appropriating money for the purchase of a site and the 
erection of a suitable building for the United States courts, post-office, 
and other Government offices, in the city of Winona, State of Min¬ 
nesota. 100,000 

S. 636, an act for the erection of a public building at Oshkosh, Wis. 100,000 

S. 674,* an act to authorize the purchase of additional grounds for the 
United States court-house and post-office building at Springfield, 

Ill. 26,000 

S. 854, an act to provide for the erection of a public building in the city 

of Manchester, in the State of New Hampshire. 300,000 

S. 1040, an act to provide for the construction of a public building at 

New Albany, Ind. 100,000 

S. 1117, an act for the erection of a public building at Macon, Ga... 125,000 

S. 1146, an act to provide for the erection of a public building in the 

city of Annapolis, Md. 100,000 

S. 1429, an act to provide for the erection of a public building at Mont¬ 
pelier, Vt. 75,000 

S. 1473, an act to enlarge the United States custom-house at Richmond, 

Va. $100,000 

S. 1504, an act for the erection of a public building at Pueblo, Colo. 100,000 

S. 1600, an act for the erection of a public building at Augusta, Ga. 200,000 


2,871,000 

Note.— Those marked with a * are increases over former appropriations— in 
the case of H. R. 1339 the limit of cost being increased to $1,500,000. 




I 







































4 


Mr. Chairman, it is, I know, an ungracious thing to oppose the wishes 
of gentlemen who, prevssed by local interests and reasons of moment to 
them, are urging these measures, but I think it is a duty to resist this 
combined etfort to erect forty public buildings. Is it proper that the 
House, which has now lor two days been voting the expenditure of sum 
after sum for these pui’poses, should recklessly continue this procedure 
until the aggregate of these vast sums voted for in Committee ot the 
Whole has been appropriated. 

Do the members of this House know that in the course of a century 
only about two hundred public buildings have been erected in the State* 
and Territories by the Government outside of the District of Columbia? 
Do you know that although you have within one hundred years built 
only two hundred public buildings you are now proposing to build over 
forty in a single session of Congress, of a Congress vaunting itself iis 
the most economical of all economical Congresses that has ever sat in 
this country? Do you know further we have in this whole Union ex¬ 
pended for public buildings outside the District of Columbia up to 1883 
but $83,429,839, and yet the Senate bills on this Calendar reach nearly 
$3,000,000, while the House bills aggregate $6,068,000? In other words, 
it is proposed to appropriate for public buildings at one session one- 
tenth of all that has been appropriated for public buildings since the 
foundation of the Government. 

Mr. BROWN, of Pennsylvania. I ask the gentleman to yield tome 
for a question. 

Mr. McCOMAS. I regret that I can not do so, as the time I have is 
barely enough for myself. 

I put it to gentlemen here who are officially charged with the respon¬ 
sibilities of legislation, and who on the other side of this House daily as¬ 
sume they have been sent here as Democrats to Congress because they 
represent the careful economy which the people of this country demand 
and require, to tell the House upon what system this long list of public 
buildings has been made up. I find there are twenty-three Democratic 
districts and thirteen Republican districts represented in this list so far 
as it has been made up. Is that the sort of economy to which they 
would invite us on this side, asking us to vote with them in swelling up 
the appropriation by some seven or eight millions of dollars upon these 
public buildings which are by favoritism and not on account of public 
need scattered over thirty-four States? 

Can it be expected, Mr. Chairman, that any committee of gentlemen 
having in charge the erection of public buildings throughout the United 
States and making up a list including thirty-four States out of the thirty- 
eight should be controlled only in making appropriations of the public 
money by what was best for the general welfare, and that they should 
not be affected by a bias in favor of their own localities ? In such a 
position they are surrounded by influences which they can not resist. 
I do not mean to impute improper motives to any one, but as I have 
said we are all affected by a bias of which we are frequently ourselves 
unconscious. It happens that the individual member when he comes 
to vote finds himself constrained against his better judgment to uphold 
what has been reported by the committee. The committee use the best 
light they can get. There is no investigation and there can be none. 
I say it is not worthy of the House that we should continue to make 
appropriations in this random way. 

The members whose districts are favored are constrained to think 
kindly of all others in this long chain of appropriations. A chain is no 


stronger than its weakest link, and the member so strongly influenced 
by local pressure is induced unconsciously to support the weakest link 
that the chain may draw his own portion of it across this floor. Mem¬ 
bers from the several States are gently disarmed of opposition by the 
donation of a sum in their respective States, and with thirty-four States 
thus invited to the alliance, who can successfully resist this powerful 
co-operation of local interests which in the guise of a national improve¬ 
ment is being pressed through this House to the prejudice of all mat¬ 
ters of great national concern? For myself, sir, I am told by these 
reports, vote away eight millions of the surplus if you would secure 
$100,000 for Annapolis. 

This vicious system of combination should be stopped, and some bet¬ 
ter mode devised. • Even in the river and harbor bills, against the abuses 
of which so much has been justly said, there is a preliminary survey be¬ 
fore any appropriation is made for the improvement of any particular 
river or harbor. Some responsible officer, some responsible authority, 
investigates and reports all the facts, furnishes all the estimates and 
data necessary to advise the House as to what is proper to be done. 
But in this matter of the erection of public buildings, upon which we 
are to begin to expend such vast sums of money, nearly equaling in 
amount the appropriations contained in the river and harbor bills, we 
have no recommendations or preliminary reports of the facts involved, 
but are left in each case to be influenced altogether by local pressure, 
without regard to what j[s best for the public good. And we vote under 
an order of this House which allows only thirty minutes for debate. 

Now what is the principle upon which the committee have acted? 
What entitles a community to a public building by an act of Congress? 
What excludes a community from this favor? What is the principle 
upon which the little town of Waco, in Texas, prosperous and growing 
as it is, but with a population of only six or seven thousand, gets a pub¬ 
lic building? It has a sort of carrier-pigeon court which will sit a few 
weeks there and then flies to another town and then another in six dif¬ 
ferent sections of the State, a court where business is not yet sufficient 
to make it permanent; and because a peripatetic court wants a public 
building in that little town of Waco we are compelled to grant it here 
under the local pressure brought to bear upon us and because its fate 
is linked with better measures. The result is that caprice and not 
judgment determines the matter. It is legislation by guessing, appro¬ 
priation by caprice. The system half the time builds the building in 
the wrong place and not in the right one. 

These buildings are not confined to the capitals of the States nor to 
the largest cities nor to the busiest towns in those States. And the 
mischief commences only with the first appropriation. These buildings 
have thus been made the bantlings of Congress. The tables I hold in 
my hands show they will return again and again. The caprice of the 
architect succeeds to the caprice of the Legislature. When the custom¬ 
house is abolished or the United States courts consolidated the building 
becomes useless to the nation. And this is to be apprehended in more 
than one of these cases. I say this in no spirit of parsimony. I favor 
fair and liberal appropriations for real national needs and for public 
buildings, as well as for all branches of the public service. 

I find in the district in Maryland which I have the honor to represent, 
in Cumberland, Hagerstown, and Frederick, cities ranging in population 
from nine to fifteen thousand, three of the largest towns in that State, 
with manifold and rapidly growing industries, railway trains going and 


0 


coming every day, and yet if they had applied for public buildings they 
would have been denied because they have no Government business ex¬ 
cept the post-office. They no longer have a revenue collection district 
located there, nor the pretext of a migratory United States court, or a 
miniature custom-house to veneer an appropriation. While my own 
town, with railroads passing in every direction, with about a hundred 
trains going and coming every day, with a rapidly growing population, 
is denied a public building, I see towns here in the list of much less 
importance,* business, and population asking $50,000 and $150,000 for a 
public building, and in almost every case it is not a sentiment of nation¬ 
ality that is gratified but a local town or county pride, thinly veiled by 
a plausible demand for a Government subsidy for a national court-house 
or custom-house. The Democratic party under Southern leadership, 
despite its constitutional objections to internal improvements, now seeks 
to squander millions of public moneys for purely local buildings, over 
which the old flag will float only to catch the appropriation. 

I believe that to-day, sir, if even a tithe of the very money which you 
are expending here in this capricious legislation which will aggregate 
millions of dollars and which will also succeed in combining a sufficient 
vote to sweep all these bills through the House were to be expended to 
encourage the people of this broad land to build in all the towns with 
second and third class post-offices on long leases houses for the use of the 
post-offices as has been recommended by Postmaster-General Gresham, 
to be leased at a low rental or a fair valuation to the Government, you 
would save money to the people of this country and give the people a 
thousand-fold more than you can by thus expending millions. You 
would carry on more successfully the flourishing operations of the postal 
service by adequate clerical help and in commodious houses, which serv¬ 
ice this House, instead of promoting, has already endeavored to cripple; 
while on the other hand you are enthusiastic in lavishing expenditures 
of millions on such measures as this. It does seem to me when you are 
going to spend in the little towns of this country from $50,000 to $150,- 
000 and from that up to a million and a half of dollars in one city to 
inaugurate or continue or complete buildings without investigation * 
from anybody or without plans it is a subject that should have a little 
more attention than you propose to give it here under the rule adopted 
for the consideration of these bills. It seems to me also that you should 
take note of the fact that the “extravagant” Congress which has just 
expired—the Republican Congress—expended, so far as I have been able 
to ascertain, only about $1,660,000 in all for these expenditures, while 
you are now called upon to expend five times that amount at one sitting. 

Sir, from the very beginning of the tables, which I shall ask leave to 
include in my remarks, to the end you will find that the growth of 
each one of these buildings has far exeeeded all expectations in the way 
of expenditure. 

Every one of the bills on this long list which you have brought be¬ 
fore this House ought to be recommitted, the whole body of them, with 
instructions to the committee to report a general law "declaring what 
classes of buildings shall be erected by the nation, including not only 
forts and arsenals, barracks and lazarettos, and hospitals, as already pro¬ 
vided by law, but custom-houses, court-houses, and post-offices of cer¬ 
tain grades, and precisely defining the degree of public and national im¬ 
portance or business which will warrant such appropriation, preceding 
all by utilizing the civil and military officers already in the pay of the 
Government to make careful investigations in the section of the Union 


7 


concerned, make accurate reports, and let all be subject to the responsi¬ 
bility of the Secretary of the Treasury, who shall report to Congress 
for its decision after intelligent consideration. In a word, be as careful 
about building a house as you now desire to be about building a war 
vessel. 1 know it will not be done. I know that it is an appeal made 
in vain. I know that there is too much of the sentiment of local gain 
pervading this House and that it .will override all scruples of public 
prudence. But there ought to be a recommitment of every bill like 
this, with instructions to the committee to establish a standard of pro¬ 
priety for the guidance of this House which would admit of the erec¬ 
tion of public buildings only after due investigation and careful exam¬ 
ination and preliminary survey and estimate. 

This Democratic Congress, and my Republican brethren might as well 
bear it in mind, by these bills and the impending river and harbor bill 
are about to expend more money in one session, although professing to 
be opposed to internal improvements, than.the old Whig party ever ex¬ 
pended in all its administration of this G-overnment. You will expend 
for local purposes and local pride more money than you have denied 
for public purposes. 

You will deny to the clerks of the post-offices, as you have done al¬ 
ready, less than $1,000,000, which will go home to all the people of all 
the land, giving much needed facilities, and yet spend seven times that 
amount in this capricious legislation. You will deny the country here 
a navy, and you have already cut off all hope of building more war 
vessels, which might have been the pride and the glory and the de¬ 
fense of this nation, in order to squander these millions of money here 
to throw it away in districts where local influences and ofttimes po¬ 
litical purposes are the ruling motives, the inception and final approval 
of these vast building projects. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, for myself, being held in the dark and finding 
out the light as best I can, I do not consider that the reports of the 
committee which accompany these bills for public buildings, or the 
ten or twenty reports which will dispose of $8,000,000, and which are 
all reported by one man and considered, perhaps, in a perfunctory man¬ 
ner, perhaps looked at by the committee, I do not believe that it is the 
right and proper method of presenting a subject for our consideration, 
and I shall object to each one of them and vote only for a few of them 
when I am convinced there is an actual national need, voting against 
the most of them because they do not measure up to that high standard 
of public usefulness which requires the expenditure of the people’s 
money. A surplus shall not tempt me to public extravagance. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 



Tax on Distilled Spirits. 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON. J. W. McCOKMICK, 

OF OHIO, 

In the House of Eepresentatives, 

Wedneday, 3Iarch 26, 1884. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of Ihe Union, 
and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5265) to extend the time for the 
payment of the tax on distilled spirits now in warehouse— 

Mr. McCORMICK said: 

Mr. Chairman : I am aware that the measure now before the House 
has been pretty full^^ discussed pro and con, and my remarks shall be 
brief. Fair and honorable debate concedes to every man the right to 
his convictions as also the right to advocate them, and, free from acri¬ 
mony and bitterness, leads to safest results in the discussion of any 
measure. I shall content myself with the expression of some convictions 
of my own, more or less, directly or indirectly, growing out of the mat¬ 
ter now before us for our consideration. 

The question involved in this discu.ssion on the proposition now be¬ 
fore the House in the provisions of this bill seems to me to be one of 
policy against principle, of expediency against right. Policy asks what 
is easiest, what will pay best; Avhile principle asks the question. What 
is right ? And knowing the right, performs it. 

Wlien it comes to a matter of principle, whether you apply the rule 
to the nation or the individual citizen, its force is the same, and honor 
and integrity make it binding upon us to observe it. 

What ought to be done in regard to the liquor traflic is to members 
of this House in their official capacity a question of momentous im¬ 
portance. It is a question not to be dealt with rashly, or decided has¬ 
tily, or without regard for the rights of the citizen; and by the citizen 
we mean the great body of our people of all classes and conditions in 
life. Statistics give the whole cost of liquors in the year 1873 at -§700,- 
000,000. A recent statement in an editorial of the New York Tribune 





gives the amount of $800,000,000 spent in this country yearly for drink; 
an amount exceeding by $100,000,000 the entire sum raised by taxes 
of all kinds, national, State, county, city, town, and school district, as 
stated upon the authority of the Census Bureau. America pays whisky 
dealers more than she pays the laboring classes. Drink costs more than 
three times as much as we pay for clothes, fourteen times as much as 
we pay for public schools, and eighteen times as much as we give to 
the poor. 

A traffic that costs in actual payment and in loss of productive labor 
more than half the national debt every year is not an insignificant mat¬ 
ter to the true political economist, leaving out of the question the class 
who oppose the traffic from moral convictions. The cost of pauperism, 
of crime from intemperance, the waste of grain, and loss of productive 
industry in their effects upon the country can not be evaded by the 
loyal statesman who has his country’s good in view and seeks the per¬ 
petuity of our free institutions. Such a drain as these make on a nation’s 
resources affords grounds for alarm that can not fail to claim his thought¬ 
ful consideration, and against which he fails in duty if he does not lift a 
warning voice. But there is another phase of this question that neces¬ 
sarily presents itself for our contemplation; other things besides the 
pecuniary affairs of the nation affect its welfare. 

Secretary Seward in his lifetime said: 

No Republican Government can stand that has not for its support the moral¬ 
ity and virtue of the people. 

In the same connection he goes on to say: 

But what a fearful decay of public virtue attends the liquor traffic, degrading 
and destroying to those who should become the pillars and strength of our 
Government. 

It has been well said that ‘ ‘ government emanates from the moral at¬ 
tributes of mankind. It is a thing of moral necessity, and its power 
and obligation are of a moral kind. ” It is the duty of the Govern¬ 
ment to make it difficult to do wrong and easy to do right, to throw 
around the citizen such safeguards and such wholesome protection as 
will secure him against the impure and vicious and stimulate within 
him the desire for the pure and the good. But the effect of the liquor 
traffic, direct and indirect, view it as he may, upon the individual and 
upon society is paralyzing to the physical, intellectual, social, moral, 
and political well-being of the community and State. 

Burke has defined law as beneficence acting by rule; but who, in look¬ 
ing at the immeasurable evils, can plead in behalf of the beneficence.of 
the liquor traffic? The thousand of millions of revenue to the Govern¬ 
ment would soon fly upward in the balance as weighed against the bur¬ 
dens and griefs and anguish and death it entails upon society. 

In its hold upon the country this traffic is aggressive in its character, 
and is becoming more nnd more exorbitant in its demands. In illustra¬ 
tion of the truth that 

He that hath a thousand friends hath not a friend to spare, 

But he that hath one enemy shall meet him everywhere, 

this traffic comes crowding in upon us here. What other business or 
traffic comes into the council chambers of this nation seeking such help 
and such special privileges as are demanded by this bill ? By what 
right or precedent does it come here seeking to be freed from its ob¬ 
ligations, when no other business would for a moment indulge the 
thought even that it had any right to make such a claim? But this 




3 


traffic, in all its boldness and effirontery, according to its accustomed 
habit of seeking to dictate and control the policy of States, does so as¬ 
sert itself and presents its claims for recognition here. The question 
that confronts us, then, is this: Is it right that this bill pass? Look¬ 
ing at that question in the length and breadth and full scope of its pe- 
cuuiary significance, is it for the welfare of our citizens, the comforts 
of our free homes, and the prosperity of our country ? Can we hon¬ 
estly, sincerely, and conscientiously answer that question in the affirm¬ 
ative by our votes in favor of this bill ? Are we to give this commerce 
of death a stronger hold upon us, or is it not a wiser, safer, truer, no¬ 
bler policy to seek rather to loosen its hold on the aitals of this nation 
than to suffer it to bind us more strongly in its fatal coils ? 

O 


\ 


I 


\ 



I 



Invalid Pensions. 


E E M A K K S 

OF 

HON. J. W. MoCORMICK, 

OF OHIO, 

In the House of Eepresentatives, 


Friday, 3Iay 9, 1884. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar, and 
having under consideration the bill (H. R. 1998) for the relief of William J. 
Sawyer— 

Mr. McCORMICK said: 

Mr. Chairman : Since I have been in official position it has fallen 
to my lot to have considerable to do with the claims of soldiers who are 
applicants for pensions. It has always been a pleasure to me to have 
the opportunity to aid them in any honorable way to secure their just 
dues. 

In calling up these claims it has always been a matter of pain and 
regret to me, by way of reply of the Pension Department to these calls 
in giving the status of the case, to read that “this claim was rejected ” 
at such a date for lack of a single link in the chain of testimony, or 
for some apparently insignificant cause. 

Another fact in the consideration of these claims has seemed to me to 
work an injustice to the claimant, and that is the requirement of proof 
that he was a sound man, free from all physical disabilities, when he en¬ 
tered the service. I hold, Mr. Chairman, thai if he was deemed able 
after the proper examination by the examining officers of the Army to 
enter the service and fight the battles of his country, and thus help to 
save the life of the nation, he should not be required by any law to go 
back of that examination to prove that he was a sound man when he 
entered the service of his country, and it does seem to me to be a hu¬ 
miliating and an unfair requirement of him on the part of the Govern¬ 
ment. 

It has also been an unpleasant thing to me, Mr. Chairman, to sit in 
my seat in this Hall and witness the opposition to the passage of spe¬ 
cial acts for the relief of these brave men, or their widows and orphans, 
based simply on some slight technicalities or want of a precedent, 
while it is indeed a matter of great significance to the needy, suffering 
ones who have periled their lives to save the country. I do not object 
to proper investigation and proper discrimination between just and un¬ 
just claims, but it is no reproach to this great country and this Gov- 




ernment, if it errs at all, to err on the side oI‘ mercy to those who saved 
the life of the great Eepiiblic. 

Our memories can easily reach back, Mr. Chairman, over the past to 
darker periods in our country’s history, when dread uncertainty pre¬ 
vailed and the destiny of the nation hung trembling in a balance; when 
war with its discords and carnage was shedding the best blood of the 
land; when a fierce and mighty struggle was going on for national ex¬ 
istence and the integrity of national union and honor. 

The history of our country tells us that for great principles our fore¬ 
fathers fought and shed their blood on many a sanguinary field in the 
Avar of the KeA^olution, and for the maintenance of those same prin¬ 
ciples recollection assures us with the reminders of these claims that 
come before us for our consideration to-day that the gallant sons of the 
North fought and thousands yielded up their lives as a sacrifice in a 


fresh baptism of blood on the numerous battlefields of the late ciA'il 
war. 

It AA^as their loyalty, their decision, their courage and determined 
action in defense of the rights of men that gaAe to us the peace, the 
harmony, and the prosperity Ave enjoy to-day. 

With them principle was of vital significance. The poet Campbell 
has well said: 

The patriot’s blood is the seed of Freedom’s tree. 

While Mr. Emerson only emphasizes the same truths in the declara¬ 
tion— 

’Tis only the triumph of principle that gives peace. 

Kindred and home and friends were dear to all these heroic defend¬ 
ers of the Union, but aboA^e the strong ties of kindred, and home and 
loved ones they recognized their country’s call and their country’s 
claim to their devotion and service, and A'cluntarily Avent forth beneath 
the folds of the banner of unity and freedom to battle for the right. 
They Avere not promj)ted by the glory and the pomp of Avar to leave 
their homes, for they Avere lovers of the pursuits of peace; nor Avere 
they driven serf-like into the Army, but moved by a patriotic impulse, 
under a sense of the nation’s peril, they left all that heart holds dear to 
take up arms in defense of the principles they loved, and they marched 
under the banner of the free, and, marshaled in battle array, they fol¬ 
lowed where the old flag led until their brave and bitter foes AA^ere pros¬ 
trate in the dust, and liberty, loyalty, and patriotism proclaimed perpet¬ 
ual union beneath the glorious folds of the old Star-Spangled Banner. 

However important may have been the work of the statesman, the 
politician, and the man of military training in our national struggle, 
they could not have maintained our existence as a united Republic. 
The citizen soldier, inspired by a love of home that generously ex¬ 
panded into the Avider loA'e of country, bore the burden and heat of that 
terrible struggle. From the free homes of the North farmers, me¬ 
chanics, merchants, citizens by the hundred thousand as a mighty 
stream poured forth, bore the brunt of the terrible shock and strife. 
Such patriotism was then essential to the salvation of the nation, and 
such pure, unsullied patriotism will ever be necessary to secure the 
purity and permanency of our free institutions. 

Terrible and effective is the work of thinking bayonets, that either 
find the way for freedom, justice, and right, or make it in a iDatliAvay of 


V 

W • 





a 


blood through the ranks of their foes. Though nearly a score of years 
have gone by since our national life-struggle ended, the wounds "have 
not been healed in many stricken hearts. Many bowed and crippled 
forms are seen among us as the result of hardships and privations of 
camp life, the marches, the imprisonments, and the dreadful storm and 
shock of battle. The light and pride of many a household, too, Avent 
out to do battle for the right to return no more forever. 

Memory will still delight to linger round their cherished forms as they 
were in the life of the long ago; and when memorial days roll round with 
fleeting years, tears mingled with wreaths and flowers will fall on their 
graves all over the land. The strong arm of husband and father no 
longer protects or supports the widow and the orphan. How many of 
those dear ones, too, whose quiet resting-places are unknown! How 
many lie buried thus in the sunny South land, whose graves will never 
be known or marked by mortal man; nor mother’s nor sister’s loving 
hand shall strew their graves with flowers ! 

But the finger of glory shall point where they lie; 

And far from the footstep of coward and slave, 

The Spirit of Freedom will shelter their graves. 

Fondly let us cherish their memory and the noble cause in which 
they died. And we will not forget the living. A nation’s gratitude 
will ever be due to these brave men. How fitting that they revive the 
memories of other days in their memorial services and their reunions, 
and bring to mind the triumph of arms in glorious victory that gives 
us peace in all our borders. They are falling here and there. Ere 
they go hence let them have the assurance that a nation’s obligations 
to them are met in a noble, generous way. 

Let no narrow, parsimonious statesmanship dole out grudgingly, with 
meager, sparing hand, a mere pittance for the valuable services they 
rendered, but such a liberal support as will make them feel an honest 
pride in their declining years in the noble generosity of the nation 
whose life they saved. Mr. Chairman, imagination could not picture 
what our condition might have been had not these grand, heroic men, 
taking their lives in their hands and thrusting themselves into the 
breach between insurrection and Union, saved the nation’s life. 

But what do we see as the result of their exalted heroism ? A gov¬ 
ernment restored on a basis of perpetual union, human slavery wiped 
out, i)eace and harmony in all our borders. Men in the vocations of 
life are driving the wheels of active industry in peaceful pursuits. Agri¬ 
culture, manufactures, and commerce have assumed wonderful propor¬ 
tions. The facilities for the mental and moral development of the peo¬ 
ple are becoming grand in their effectiveness and widening extent, and 
all the interests of a free and mighty people assure us of the fact that 
we are in. the enjoyment of a great prosperity. With a Treasury full 
to repletion, and all our national interests thus prosperous, Ave should 
as the nation’s legislators make liberal provision for the orphan and 
AvidoAV, and for these brave men in their declining years. 


O 







f-;3 


THE TARIFF. 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON. WILLIAM McKINLEY, jR., 

OF OHIO, 


IN THE 


HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES, 


Wednesday, April 30, 1884. 


WASHINGTON . 
1884 . 




' 'Vi'SV- ': r-H’' ■ \ U''- 

• > . • • • .. ..■• j<, ■• . *.'■ ' 




'A 


r # 




'' , ''■. ■'■''' '.^:; ' ■’ ' ' ' *'" ' - ' ' 

--F 


■J. \ * '■• * f7< ' 


V' 




» 

1 • 








•V. 


> 

H. 




' ‘'.K. . *■'■ 







f . 


y * ’i • 


w,'-'" ■• ^■- 

:r- ■ - ' 

• -V « 


V- 




; 




I .♦ .* .• * 

'•-■'J ■ 

‘‘r'i 


A 





'^4 • 




I . '.V 


■ ■\ rtf; 


r^'\ ‘ . • ■- 

‘V,j vV -. *' ' 


/'•- 




A.'- ' 





*' A A ■.•V ' 






’ * <‘* 




. ov. 


». V 


r • ^ 


^ }*• . 


: \ <1; 

U •• ; 


. . < . . ,.:.V,|' 





W.‘« 





\¥ '• 


IS 

.J 


I ^ 


•.•A 


'• ■''v-. 




‘ • • ■' < *• 






•i*' 


i^'-’ 


7''"l', " . 


•!« ■/ 

k 




!• 

' * 


. V' 




t ■ - 


7^) -.V.^ / 

r 

,'■■ ■■ V-'.'. 


V ,. 

* *' 


'*‘1. '* 


« , 


' V*' 

I 


• ^ ‘m: 


. ] 


'|i’ ' 




•■V 


t« 

K 


••* ;: "j 


r-- 


, , 




1 

I 

11 


‘<\ •<' 

. . i 


. \ 


y 


.*. i ■ 


, r ■ 

‘ ' * V *"• * ■ 




^. 


•. 7 - ,• ■): ',- 

■ ■./■■': U;./. 


'■ V..- 


f ■ t 


. > 


I 'r-^ ' ' . ■ » ;. .• 









• / 



• f ^ 


*•, i 


■ '.s ^ 

‘j.- ^ -A 




I. 


’i ) 


W • ! 


■'•J 


A, . 

i * 






> J ' 

' '/• “• ». 


K- i-. - 

‘■•*i 

. • 




:• Wl'; ,.A V • ‘I .■' • 

%'-i. ■■-• -*■■ ,. ■ . 

'JV''.."' *; . ' 


I . 


I ' > )’“ 


* H " 


Y> 


‘ .jMk ■t.T 


: .s - ' 


VI •; ^ 



% ,.• 




V , 


t : 

• •«( 
% 




*« 
• * 


* ' i 

. *1 V 





. 'A 


'• *yi 


'i 


«■•- 




i • 



M ^^ • 


7 • .O' / 

>» ' •■». I 


^ '■/ •' >• 









1^*-«* * I • 

//■*•'• ■'* -■ 

J J *'> ••> ‘'‘ 


0 7 ^ 


-r - 

. ‘■■4 


W 






f •’•7' • ' • ■ )' ^ *1 

r'-, .^v.- ^ 

i^ife ■ ' 

■\ ' t 


« . ’f“ 






' > 


f ■ 



M 


. n 


s«« 



• ^: i 


•’cr» 






"‘f.* , '* 


.■^1 .\ -T 


/ • ■ I 




% /* 


'47 . »' . 




i \ 


k 4 k 


r 7- : 


y J '*'■> 






yjv • 


P/ 


. \ 


•i • 


«lA J ^ p> 

'O ,> . ‘ ,. ». • 

■■/'7'.•>.■ ■ 






’ 4: 


.'I 


.■■ 


*M. •* 




,,. ^ 

I •] 








' • i V -I ■' 

>♦»/ . • « , .. . « ' 

* . _i < • ■ ■A 


1 . **• 

. • . 

1- .1 

• ^ 7. ' 


^ ■■ 

i. 


r 

I 







\ 


' ff ' 


* ' V 


■/, 


' •, ■ . . * . ^ 


A 


■ y : 'V: 

’. t* V>i ■ 

c ■'.^ 

■> - .4 7?! 


♦H 


I "j 


V ; .J^:,; ■:^ ....^, .;;^v.vi‘- 

• ...v 


V -•■ 


• ^ 



.‘t ■ V 




/ • 
»•■ 

•I 1. 


. V'i ' ' An i' ■.*■••'• y S;‘ 

' ■■ . '^ * ' ‘f, ’ 






'•.It**' 


-A.>; t 



t-^ 




' • f !« 






SPEECH 


OF 

HON. WILLIAM MoKINLEY, Je. 


The House being in CJommittee of the WTiole House on the state of the Union, 
and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5893) to reduce import duties and 
war-tariflf taxes— 

Mr. MCKINLEY said: 

Mr. Chairman : I do not intend to be drawn into any extended dis¬ 
cussion of tbe two systems of levying duties upon imports, upon which 
the two political parties of the country are in conflict, except as such dis¬ 
cussion may be necessary to the consideration of the bill now before us. 

It is gratifying to know that at last the true sentiment of the Demo¬ 
cratic party of the country dominates the party in which it has so long 
been in the majority, and no longer submits to the dictation of a fac¬ 
tious minority within its own ranks. It is gratifying because the peo¬ 
ple can no longer be deceived as to the real purpose of the party, which 
is to break down the protective tariff and collect duties hereafter upon 
a pure revenue basis, closely approximating free trade. Patent plat¬ 
forms and the individual utterances of Democratic statesmen will no 
longer avail, and false pretenses can no longer win. 

A HORIZONTAL REDUCTION. 

The bill reported from the Committee on Ways and Means is a prop¬ 
osition to reduce the duties upon all articles of imported merchandise, 
except those embraced in two schedules, to wit, spirits and silks, 20 
per cent. It is to be a horizontal reduction, not a well-matured and care¬ 
fully considered revision. Its author makes no such claim for it; but con¬ 
fesses in his recent speech, that while a revision and adjustment are “es¬ 
sential, ’' “ they are believed to be unattainable at the present session 
of Congress. ” It admits of no exception or discrimination, except only 
that the proposed reduction shall not operate to reduce the duty below 
the rate at which any article was dutiable under the tariff act of 1861, 
commonly called the Morrill tariff, and in no case shall cotton goods 
pay a higher rate of duty than 40 per cent, ad valorem, and wools and 
woolens a higher rate than 60 per cent, ad valorem, and metals a higher 
rate of duty than 50 per cent, ad valorem. 

With these exceptions and qualifications only 80 per cent, of the 
duties now imposed by law are to be collected under the bill we are 
now considering. 

The friends of thit measure have felt called upon in advance to apolo¬ 
gize for the smallness of the proposed reduction, and attempt to con¬ 
ciliate that large majority of their party which is in favor of the Eng¬ 
lish system by declaring that this is only a step, and the first step, 
in the direction of the ultimate enactment of a pure revenue tariff. It 
is the first move toward the destruction of that system of tariff duties 
which has been recognized in this Government from its foundation as 
essential to its revenues and the proper care of its own industries. 


\ 







4 


WHICH MEANS A TAX UPON TEA AND COFFEE. 


It is not because they are favorable to protection, even incidentally, 
that only 20 per cent, reduction is proposed, but because believing this 
is all they can accomplish this year they invite all the friends of tariff 
reform to join them, with the assurance that next year and for the fol¬ 
lowing years additional steps will be taken which will ultimately bring 
our tariff taxation to a strictly revenue basis; which means a tax upon 
tea and coffee and such other articles as we can not produce or manu¬ 
facture in the United States, ana the release of all others from customs 
duties. 

My distinguished friend, the chairman of the Committee on Ways 
and Means, shakes his head in disapproval of that proposition. Why, 
this theory of taxation is as old as the Democratic party, and in the 
Forty-sixth Congress my distinguished friend and colleague [Mr. Htjkd] 
introduced into this House a joint resolution a copy of which I have in 
my hand—he one of the most conspicuous leaders of the free-trade party 
here to- day—and he distinctly declared in the ninth section of that joint 
resolution that to the end the present tariff shall become one for revenue 
ONLY the following changes should be made; 

1. Upon all dutiable articles producing little or no revenue to the 
Government the duty should be returned to a revenue basis or they 
should be placed on the free-list. 

2. The duty on tea and coffee shall be restored. 

And that is what a revenue tariff* means. It means collection of 
revenue upon the fewest possible articles, chiefly of necessity, that are 
consumed by the people of this country. 

Mr. HA MMOND. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a ques¬ 
tion ? 


Mr. MCKINLEY. Certainly. 

Mr. HAMMOND. What became of that resolution ? 

• Mr. McKINLEY. It was not passed by the Forty-sixth Congress 
It was undertaken to be passed, but no vote was ever had thereon. 

A Member. That was a Democratic Congress. 

Mr. McKINLEY. Yes, the Democrats were in control; but that Dem¬ 
ocratic Congress failed to do a great many things which it believed ought 
to be done. It lacked the courage of its convictions. The truth is, 
that has been the trouble with the Democratic party for the last twenty- 
five years in failing to enforce its true convictions. 

Mr. HAMMOND. That was the argument or the opinion of one man, 
but not of the party. 


Mr. McKINLEY. It was not only the opinion of one man, permit 
me to say, but that resolution was reported to this House by the chair¬ 
man of the Committee of Ways and Means, upon which committee was 
found such gentlemen as the distinguished Speaker of this House and 
the eminent gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Tucker]. Whether it was 
the voice of this House or not, it was the voice of that great committee 
which was the organ of this House on all economic questions. 


THE FIRST ASSAULT UPON DISCRIMINATING DUTIES, 

So that before we enter fully upon the discussion of this particular 
measure we might as well understand that this is but the first assault, 
which is to be followed by a succession of assaults, to the total over¬ 
throw of the protective system; and that the fight we now make is not 
against this bill only, but is directed as well against that which will 
surely follow if we permit this incipient step to be taken. This appre¬ 
hension is fully justified by the report of the majority and by the utter- 


5 


ancea of the advocates of the bill, who do not hesitate to say that this 
is only “a measure of partial relief.” “It is,” says the chairman of 
the Committee of Ways and Means, “but an advance toward a more 
complete revenue reform.” “It is,” says the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Hewitt], “a step in the right direction, but it does not go 
far enough. It does not touch the heart of the question. It is the 
euteriug-wedge. ” While my friend from Texas [Mr. Wellborn], who 
concluded his speech a moment ago, declared this was the initial step 
which doomed protection. 

This is notice of Democratic purpose without cover or concealment, 
and the friends of protection therefore know what this bill means. The 
issue is made up. The gage of battle is thrown down—we cheerfully 
take it up, and appeal to the people, whose servants we are and to whose 
will, legally expressed, we will give cordial acquiescence. 

THE BILL TOO AMBIGUOUS I'OR A PUBLIC LAW. 

My first objection to this bill is that it is too ambiguous and uncertain 
for a great public statute. It will involve dispute and contention upon 
nearly every invoice, and will lead to frequent, expensive, and annoy¬ 
ing litigation. It will be difficult, if not impossible, oi’ execution, re¬ 
quiring mathematical experts to determine the assessable duty upon 
practically every bill of imported goods. It will not only require math¬ 
ematical experts but it will require a judge familiar with the inter¬ 
pretation of law to give construction to and harmonize if possible its 
several inconsistent and conflicting provisions. I doubt if any member 
of the Ways and Means Committee would be bold enough to venture 
upon its administration, certainly my friend from Texas [Mr. Mills] 
would not be willing to undertake its execution; and I am sure that 
the chairman, if himself required to give it force and construction, 
would never have brought it into this House, and would be the first to 
pray for its repeal. 

On a large number of articles under the bill the duties will be deter¬ 
mined by the Morrill tariff of 1861. Under the cotton schedule there 
will be four classes; flax, four classes; metals, twenty-one classes; books 
and sugar, one class each; wood, two classes; earthenware, two classes; 
provisions, four classes; chemical products, six classes; sundries, twenty- 
three classes, the duties upon which the act of 1861 will determine and 
control, so that the Morrill act will be in constant requisition and use 
in the determination of duties. It would have been better legislation 
upon the part of the majority, more certain and statesmanlike, to have 
proposed a re-enactment of the Morrill tariff, taking it as a whole, than 
the uncertain and incongruous bill they now offer. % 

Again, where an article pays an ad valorem rate under one act, and 
a specific or compound rate under the other, difficulties at once arise. 

01‘ these there are one hundred and eighteen classes, of which only four 
pay a specific duty under the act of 1861, and only three pay an ad valo¬ 
rem duty, and four pay compound duties under the proposed bill—the 
remainder pay specific duties. 

These repr^ent cases only where there is no doubt of the effect of 
the bill, and this is the legislation which the statesmen of the Forty- 
eighth Congress offer us. 

Mr. MOHRISON. Would the bill commend itself to the favor of 
the gentleman if the Morrill tariff clause was stricken out ? Would 
the gentleman then give the bill his support ? 

Mr. McKinley. I would answer my distinguished and honorable 
friend by saying that I would not support this bill if it was a straight 


G 


20 per cent, reduction of the duties of 1883, and I will tell him why 
I would not. Some articles of imported merchandise can better stand 
a reduction of 20 per cent, than others. A 20 per cent, reduction will 
destroy some of the great manufacturing industries of the United States, 
while a few others might live. It would be death to some and only dis¬ 
tress to others. Take twenty inches off of the leg of the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means and you would still 
leave a stump, but take twenty inches off of one of the smallest persons 
to be found about this House and you would leave him without any 
stump at all. [Great laughter on the Republican side.] That is why 
I would not vote for a simple 20 per cent, reduction, horizontally ap¬ 
plied to every article imported into this country. 

Mr. TUCKER. That is a good stump speech. [Laughter.] 

THE BIIiLi IX SOME OP ITS PROVISIOXS INCAPABLE OP EXECUTION. 

Mr. McKinley. To resume: There are other articles not included 
in either enumeration. There will be found many difficult and per¬ 
plexing questions arising from the various rates of duties under the two 
acts. It will be difficult, if not impracticable, to conform the rates 
undertheactof 1861 to the classification and description of articles and 
the rates under the act of 1883. Where the description or classifica¬ 
tions are different, how will you ascertain the dutiable rate ? The mode 
of levying either the ad valorem, specific, or compound duties are so con¬ 
fusing, requiring so much calculation, that it is almost impossible to 
disclose in the time allotted to me the difficulties to be encountered in 
the endeavor to administer the proposed bill. To illustrate, take iron 
ore; an article subject under the act of 1861 to an ad valorem rate, and 
under the proposed bill to a specific rate. The rate under the present 
law is 75 cents per ton, and by the bill under consideration is subject to 
a reduction of 20 per cent., making it 60 cents per ton. Under the act 
of 1861 it is subject to a duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem. There was 
imported in the year 1883 609,322 tons of iron ore at an average cost of 
$2.61 per ton. 

The average price of $2.61 per ton is an exceptionally low price. A 
large proportion of the importations of this article the last year must 
have cost more than $3 per ton. If there should be none costing above 
$3 there will be no difficulty, but if it should cost over $3, say $3.05 
per ton, the 20 per cent, duty will be 61 cents, and the duty under the 
proposed bill would, instead of 60, be 61 cents, and so on, varying in 
every instance where there is .any excess of $3 per ton. By a reduc¬ 
tion of one-ninth of the proposed specific rates or its equivalent ad 
valorem, 22.73 per cent., we reduce it below the act of 1861, and in 
every case where the value exceeds one-sixth or more of the present 
value of $2.61 per ton the rates would have to be readjusted; so that 
in a cargo of 1,000 tons or less there may be a dozen different rates. 

Take files, rasps, and floats. The difficulties are greatly increased. 
Under the act of 1861 these are dutiable at 30per cent, ad valorem; un¬ 
der the act of 1883, at so much per dozen, according to length. There 
are four classes—from four inches and under; from four to nine inches; 
from nine to fourteen inches; and over fourteen inches—all at different 
rates. You must ascertain the exact value of each per length, and cal¬ 
culate upon each to find the precise reduction or rate, so as not to be 
below the rate of 1861 or above the maximum rate, as provided for in 
the proposed bill. A similar difficulty is found as to wood screws, where 
the rates are so much at variance. 

IwouMlikesomeof the advocates of this bill to sit down and make a 


7 


calculation upon the articles I have named and give their dutiable 
rates. I am sure before they have finished their work they would pro¬ 
nounce this bill too complicated for human ingenuity and too uncer¬ 
tain for public law. 

The bill is full of just such complications and abounds in incalcula¬ 
ble inconsistencies and confusion, is indefinite and indeterminable, and 
is the work not of experts, is the outgrowth not of knowledge or informa¬ 
tion or study of the subject, but rather of the desire to do something— 
to take one step, no matter where it leads or what results may flow. 

Sulphur under the act of 1861 paid a duty of 20 percent, tinder the 
proposed bill, $8 per ton—equal to 20.56 per cent. A slight rise of one-for¬ 
tieth of the present cost would have the effect of changing the proposed 
rates, and the rates would be different upon every invoice valued in 
excess of $40 per ton. Take brass sheathing or yellow metal, gold leaf, 
metiillic pens, grindstones, chloroform, hops, magnesia calcined, sal- 
soda, &c.: the change in values (and values are constantly changing) 
would make the duties different and the difficulties of ascertaining them 
increased. In every instance where the specific is substituted for the 
ad valorem rate, or vice versa, the value of each invoice would have to 
be ascertained to find out the equivalent specific for the ad valorem rate 
,of 1861, and perhaps in one single cargo there would be a dozen or more 
different rates upon the same article, though these articles might vary 
very slightly in value. 

ABSURDITIES OP THE BILE. 

The absurdities of this bill, says an officer conversant with the revenue 
law, will be apparent to any one at all familiar with the practical work¬ 
ings of our complicated tariff. By law the collector is charged with de¬ 
ciding the rate of duty and the appraiser with determining the value. 
Practically, however, the appraising officers indorse upon the invoice 
both the statement of value and the rate of duty which in their judg¬ 
ment the goods should bear. At the larger ports of entry, like Boston 
and New York, this work is generally done by the grade of officers known 
as examiners, and their returns are generally accepted by the collector 
as the basis for liquidating the entry. We will then see what work an 
examiner would have to do in computing the rates of duty, taking first, 
say, cotton goods. 

Under the tariff of March 3,1883, cotton thread and cotton yarn pay 
eight different rates of duty dependent on value, the duty ranging from 
10 cents to 48 cents a pound. 

The examiner will have first to determine the value of the^nerchan- 
dise, and which of the several eight different rates of duty it has to 
pay. Then he will have to take 80 per cent, of the rate applicable and 
see what ad valorem rate it amounts to. Then, if the rate is higher 
than 40 per cent, ad valorem, all his labor has gone for naught, for the 
goods are to pay no higher duty than 40 per cent, ad valorem, except 
such 40 per cent, may be lower than the duty imposed by the Morrill 
tariff of 1861. So he examines the Morrill tariff and finds that spool 
and other thread of cotton pay 30 per cent, ad valorem; that cotton yarn 
and cotton warps were not mentioned therein, and so probably fall into 
the classification of manufactures of cottons not otherwise provided 
for, which also pay 30 per cent, ad valorem; so once more he raises 
the duty up again to 40 per cent. He next takes an invoice of cotton 
cloth and attempts to classify it. The rates of duty on cotton cloth are 
dependent upon various criteria: First, upon the number of threads 
to the square inch; second, whether the goods are unbleached; third, 




8 


whether they are bleached; fourth, whether they are dyed, colored, 
stained, or painted. These complex conditions have to be ascertained 
and the rates of duty per square yard first applied to the act of JNIarch 
3,1883. When the amount of duty on this basis has been ascertained, 
the appraiser strikes olf 20 per cent., making the 80 per cent, under the 
Morrison bill. Then he has to appraise the goods for value, and if 80 
per cent, of the rates imposed by the act of March 3, 1883, does not ex¬ 
ceed the 40 per cent, restriction of the Morrison bill the examiner may 
rest contented unless he again finds that his work is overruled by the 
remaining conditions found in the act of 1861, which may determine 
the whole thing. 

In the act of 1861 the I'ate of duty was dependent upon, first, whether 
the goods exceeded 140 threads to the square inch, then from 140 to 200; 
then for goods having more than 200 threads to the square inch. In 
the act of 1883 the duty is dependent, first, upon goods having less than 
100 threads to the square inch ; then between 100 and 200, and then ex¬ 
ceeding 200; so that the conditions and classification of the two acts are 
not the same. 

Now take Schedule K, relating to wool and woolens. By the 
Morrison bill 80 per cent, of existing duties are to be imposed, pro¬ 
vided that none of the goods contained therein shall pay a higher duty 
than 60 per cent, ad valorem, coupled again with the check found in 
the Morrill tariff. The duties imposed by this schedule have been 
carefully adjusted with reference to the various qualities of goods, 
their position in the trade, and to a large extent with reference to the 
position they occupy in the various branches of American manufactures. 
It is now symmetrical, and easily understood. To say that no goods 
under that schedule shall pay any more than 60 per cent., as does the 
Morrison bill, is to do violence to whatever principle there may be in 
the schedule. Besides, in comparing the wool tarifl’ in the act of March 
3, 1883, with that in the Morrill tariff, it is found that the groups and 
classifications are so entirely different as to make comparison in many 
cases impossible. 

Now, turn to the iron tariff. Eighty per cent, of the existing duties 
are to be imposed on articles in Schedule C, provided that none of the 
articles shall pay higher duties than 50 per cent, ad valorem. 

If there is any merit whatever in the tariff as it now stands as a 
protection to American manufacturers in their competition with the 
cheap laljpr of Europe, by which they have been enabled to develop 
the various branches of American manufactures, a reduction to a com¬ 
mon level of 50 per cent, ad valorem is neither sensible nor j ust. By such 
a rule there are many articles on which the duties have been carefully 
adjusted, where the ad valorem duty of 50 per cent, would increase the 
trouble consequent upon undervaluations. 

Then again, the bill provides that when under existing law any of 
said articles are grouped together and made dutiable at one rate, noth¬ 
ing in that act shall operate to reduce the duty below the highest rate 
at which any article was dutiable under the Morrill tariff. What is 
meant by grouping together is not explained by the chairman of the 
committee, and will prove a constant source of contention and litigation. 

In the act of 1883 iron or steel wire of various dimensions have sepa¬ 
rate classifications. The rates have been carefully adjusted. In the 
Morrill tariff wire not less than one-fourth of an inch in diameter is clas¬ 
sified with steel in ingots, bars, and sheets, and is dutiable at various 
ratesj according to value, beginning with cents per pound or 2 cents 


9 


per pound, according as the value is over or under 7 cents; but then 
again, taking the tarifi: of 1883, we find that iron or steel wire above 
No. 5 is not enumerated, and pays 45 per cent, ad valorem duty, so that 
we have to ascertain whether the 45 per cent, ad valorem, less tlie 20 
per cent, reduction, is more than the 1 j cents per pound or 2 cents per 
pound imposed by the Morrill tariff. 

The changes in trade or commercial designations of the various manu¬ 
factures ot metal since the Morrill tariif Wiis enacted have been so great 
that the present tariff bears no comparison to it. Therelbre it would be 
in many cases difiicult it not impossible to tell to what group many of 
the articles should be assigned. 

The ambiguity and uncertainty in the tariff seriously embarrass all 
branches of trade as well as the administrative oiflcers of the Depart¬ 
ment. If a person is intending to engage either in the manufacture or 
importation of any article affected by the taritf, he naturally wants to 
know beforehand the rate of duty he will have to pay or the amount of 
protection he will find in the existing tariff. He gets no light from this 
bill. He must grope in the dark. 

In ascertaining the rate of duty on an article that pays a compound 
duty—that is, a duty upon both quantity and value—under the pro¬ 
posed bill, and an ad valorem or specific rate under the 4 ict of 1861, a 
mathematical calculation would be necessary in each case to ascertain 
what rates to assess; first, to ascertain Avhether it is at or above the 
rate named in the act of 1861, or as to the restriction of the proviso in 
the proposed bill touching cottons, metals, and woolens. 

And all these absurdities, complications, and incongruities a majority 
of this House and the people of this country are asked to su])mit to and 
solemnly enact into public laAV because there are gentlemen who are 
unwilling to sit down and carefully mature a discriminating tariff act. 

THE BILL UNSCIENTIFIC—A CROSS-CUT MEASURE. 

The advocates of this bill criticised the Kepublicans of the last Con¬ 
gress because of the creation of a tariff commission, asserting that such 
action was a confession of the incapacity of a majority of the Commit¬ 
tee on Ways and Means to revise the tariff. By reason of incapacity, 
as they declared, the committee farmed out the subject to a commission 
of nine experts. Much opprobrium was sought to be put upon the ma¬ 
jority because of its alleged abrogation of a constitutional duty. What 
can be said of the capacity of the majority of the Committee on Ways 
and Means as evidenced by the bill now before us? It is a confession 
upon its face of absolute incapacity to grapple with the great subject. 
[Laughter and applause on the Kepublican side.] The Morrison bill 
will never be suspected of having passed the scrutiny of intelligent ex¬ 
perts like the Tariff Commission. This is a revision by the cross-cut 
process. It gives no evidences of the expert’s skill. It is the invention 
of indolence, I will not say of ignorance, for the gentlemen of the major¬ 
ity of the Committee of Ways and Means are competent to prepare a tarifi’ 
bill. I repeat, it is not only the invention of indolence but it is the 
mechanism of a botch workman. A thousand times better refer the 
question to an intelligent commission rvhich will study the subject in 
its relations to the revenues and industries of the country than to sub- ^ 
mit to a bill like this. 

They have determined upon doing something, no matter how mischiev¬ 
ous, that looks to the reduction of import duties; and doing it, too, in 
spit-e of the fact that not a single request has come either from the great 
producing or great consuming classes of the United States for any change 


in the direction proposed. With the power in their hands they have 
determined to put the knife in no matter where it cuts nor how much 
blood it draws. It is the volunteer surgeon, unhidden, insisting upon 
using the knife upon a body that is strong and healthy; needing only 
rest and release from the quack whose skill is limited to the hori¬ 
zontal amputation, and whose science is barren of either knowledge or 
discrimination. And then it is not to stop with one horizontal slash; 
it is to be followed by another and still another, until there is nothing 
left either of life or hope. And the doctrinaires will then have seen an 
exemplification of their x^et science in the destruction of the great pro¬ 
ductive interests of the country, and ‘ ‘ the starving poor, ’ ’ as denomi¬ 
nated by the majority, will be found without work, shelter, or food. 
The sentiment of this country is against any such indiscriminate prop¬ 
osition. The petitions before the Ways and Means Committee from 
twenty to thirty States of this Union appeal to Congress to let the tarifi 
rest where it is, in general, while others are equally importunate to have 
the duties on two or three classes of American products raised. The 
laboring men are unanimous against this bill. These appeals should 
not go unheeded. The farmers for whom you talk so eloquently have 
not asked for it. There is no appeal from any American interest for 
this legislation. 

It is well if this bill is to go into force that on yesterday the other 
branch of Congress, the Senate, passed a bankrupt bill. It is a fitting 
corollary to the Morrison bill; it is a proper and necessary companion. 
The Senate has done wisely, in anticipation of our action here, in pro¬ 
viding legal means for settling with creditors, for wiping out balances, 
and rolling from the shoulders of our people the crushing burdens which 
this bill will impose. 

REDUCTIONS OP THE LAW OF MARCH 3, 1883. 

The chairman of the committee reporting the bill fiills into a grave 
error, not intentionally of course, in his use of the table furnished by 
the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics which, if not explained, may mis¬ 
lead. It will be found that the reduction secured by the bill of last 
year was not as is alleged, but far greater, as I will show. 


Value of imports of dutkible merchandise entered for consumption in the 
United States, with the amount of duty and the ad valorem rate of duty 
collected during the six months ended December 31, 1882 and 1883. 



Six months under the old 
law—1882. 

Six months under the new 
law—1883. 

Difference in 
rates. 

Value. 

Duty. 

Rate 

Value. 

Duty. 

Rate 

Sugar andmelada. 
Ali other dutiable 
goods. 

Total. 

$44,432,311 

216,423,926 

$23,180,590 

88,085,917 

Per ct 
52.17 

40.70 

$46,793,822 

189,104,287 

. 

$23,520,030 

72,994,106 

Per cl 
50.26 

38.59 

1.90 

2.11 

260,856,237 

111,*266,507 

42.65 

235,898,109 

96,514,136| 40.91 

1.74 


It will appear from the above statement of figures that there has been 
a reduction in receipts of duties amounting to $14,752,371 notwith¬ 
standing an increase of rates upon earthenware and china and on still 
wines, on champagnes, which are included in the foregoing importations 
























11 


under the head of ‘ ‘ all other dutiable goods. ’ ’ The small difference ol 
1.74 percent, shown by the table exhibited by the chairman of the Ways 
and Means Committee in his report accompanying this hill between the 
old law and the act of March 3,1883, is delusive and arises from the low 
price of sugar and other merchandise since the new law went into effect, 
and therefore does not fairly disclose the actual percentage of reduction. 

In the year 1882 there was imported 976,099,448 pounds of sugar, 
valued at $44,432,310 at a specific rate of 2.37 cents per pound, equal to 
52.17 per cent, ad valorem at an average value of 4.55 cents per pound; 
while in 1883, 1,205,893,322 pounds, valued at $46,793,822 at an aver¬ 
age specific rate of 1.95, equal to 50.26 per cent, ad valorem at an av¬ 
erage value only of 3.88 cents per pound, being 14.72 per cent, less 
than cost of 1882. The difference between 2.37 cents per pound in 
1882 and 1.95 cents per pound in 1883 is .42 cent per pound less, or a 
reduction of 17.72 per cent, on sugar. 

The importation of sugar in 1883 was one-fifth of the value of the 
entire importations, and it is fair to assume that the exceptionally low 
price of other imported articles will fully account for the small ap¬ 
parent reduction shown by the table of the chairman of the committee. 

WILL NOT EEDUCK THE REVENUE. 

This bill will not secure the results claimed for it by its advocates 
in decreasing the revenues of the Government. The history of all tariff 
legislation is that a decrease of duty increases the imports temporarily 
and therefore swells the revenue from that source. The honorable gen¬ 
tleman from Virginia [Mr. Tucker] said in a speech in this House on 
May 8, 1878, that “a decrease of duty will increase the imports still 
more, ’ ’ and of course add to the revenues. 

The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Eaton] in his speech made 
on the 26th of March said of this bill: 

The theory of my friend from Arkansas, like the bill of my d istinguished friend 
the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, has not been qui!e suffi¬ 
ciently well considered, because that bill if it ever becomes a law will increase 
the surplus in the Treasury and not decrease it. 

Mr. Hewitt said March 27, 1884: 

But what I fear in regard to the bill reported from the Committee on Ways 
and Means is it may be delusive in that particular and so far from beinga mea.s- 
ure of reduction of revenue it may turn out to be a measure for increase of rev¬ 
enue. I do not say that it will be so. I hope that it will not, but if the free-list 
is made larger, if it is extended, then it is certain that the revenue will be re¬ 
duced, but it is only by enlarging the free-list that we can be sure of any such 
result. 

Mr. Mills said that “this bill would increase importations” and 
correspondingly increase the revenues against which every interest is 
opposed. FaUmg to accomplish that, where is the virtue of this meas¬ 
ure; what effect can it have except to disturb the business of the country, 
dimmish values, and decrease the price of labor ? 

NO DEMAND FOR THIS LEGISLATION FROM THE MASSES. 

The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mills] is greatly mistaken in the 
opening of his speech on the 15th, when he declared the demand for a 
reduction of duties upon imports was universal throughout the United 
States. He omitted to state from what source he derived his informa¬ 
tion and from what quarter this demand came. I have been unable 
to find a single petition presented to this House or referred to the Com¬ 
mittee on Ways and Means by the House suggesting, much less de¬ 
manding, the reduction of import duties proposed by this bill, or any 


12 


other reduction of customs duties. On the contrary, the petitions have 
been uniformly in opposition to the enactment of this measure. 

I have been unable to find any sentiment in the United States, ex¬ 
cept in the utterances of the Democratic majority in this House, and 
outside of the city of my distinguished friend [Mr. Dorsheimer] who 
sits before me, being the free-trade clubs of his and the neighboring city 
of Brooklyn, any sentiment in favor of the passage of this bill. There 
is where it exists, and it is remarkable fact that that class of gentle¬ 
men ‘ ‘ neither sow nor reap, and do not gather into barns. ’ ’ 

Mr. KASSON. And the lilies? 

Mr. McKINLEY. Yes, the lilies. “They are like the lilies of the 
field; they toil not, neither do they spin.” [Laughter.] 

They have fixed incomes, belong to the independent and wealthy 
classes, who now buy most of their goods abroad and hope to buy them 
cheaper if the duties are reduced. 

THE BILL A BLOW AT THE FARMERS OF THE COUNTRY. 

The gentleman from Texas justifies his advocacy of this measure on 
the ground that it is in the interest of the farmers of the United States, 
and a large portion of his speech was devoted to showing that with this 
reduction the markets of the world would be open for the competition 
of our food producers. Why, sir, they are open now. He announced 
the startling doctrine that a foreign market was better than a home 
market for the farmer; that is, it was better that the farmer should ship 
his products to other nations rather than to sell them to consumers at 
home, and that the tariff was a restraint and obstruction to the sale of 
our products abroad. He did not disclose how or in what way. I take 
it the farmer will send his products abroad when there is a demand for 
them, and only then. He did not show us in what way the benefit was 
to accrue. He did not demonstrate that the price received by the pro¬ 
ducer would be larger if sold to a foreign consumer than if sold to our 
own people. 

It has always seemed to me that it was infinitely better that the 
farmer should have a market at home, a market at his very door, than 
to be compelled to seek a market in distant countries and among distant 
populations. As long as there is a demand at home it is a self-evident 
proposition that it is better than to seek consumers abroad, and that the 
home demand is safer, more reliable, and more profitable than any for¬ 
eign market can possibly be. American buyers are the best in the 
world. He did not tell the committee what is the fact, that 90 per 
cent, of the food products of the United States is consumed at home, 
and that only about 10 per cent, has to find a market abroad. He dif¬ 
fers, too, from his colleague [Mr. Hewitt, of New York], who said in 
his speech, March 27; 

Now how can the farmer be benefited? What does he want? He wants to 
sell Ills productions at a higher price. And how is he going to sell his products 
at a higher price as the grain trade stands to-day? The markets of Europe are 
overcrowded with food products. To-day the farmer is met at Liverpool and 
London by the food products of India, and that competition so far from being 
less is going to increase. Therefore the farmer has reached the limit of the de¬ 
mand for his products in foreign lands. Where, then, is he to find his market 
for them? He must find his market at home, and how is he going to get it at 
home? Why, only by one method—manufactures must be fostered and grow 
and not be diminished. 

Mr. MORllISDN. What per cent, is consumed by the manufactur¬ 
ing people? 

Mr. McKINLEY. They consume all that they need and no more; 
and the gentleman’s proposition would drive these workingmen, who 


13 


are the consumers of the products of the farm, out of the industries and 
force them into the great fertile lands of the West, and instead of their 
being the consumers of the products of the farmer they would become 
his competitors. 

This foreign market, for which every tariff idealist and every Demo¬ 
cratic free-trader longingly sighs, is only mythical in the present con¬ 
dition of our country. We should capture the home market, first get 
control of it, before we seek the foreign one. We can not command a 
foreign market until we can control our own. It seems to me that prop¬ 
osition is so plain and palpable that it must commend itself to every in¬ 
telligent man. 

FREE RAW MATERIAL A DELUSION. 

This talk about free raw material and the necessity for our having it 
to compete with the markets in other lands is wholly ideal. Raw 
materials are partially free now when manufactured for export pur¬ 
poses, and any citizen of the United States can import a large number of 
materials and manufacture them, and if he exports he receives back from 
the Government 90 per cent, of the duty he paid upon such article or 
material. 

Sections 3019, 3020,3021, 3023, 3024, and 3026 of the Revised Statutes 
of the United States declare in their several provisions that certain ma¬ 
terials imported here for manufacture, when put into the finished prod¬ 
uct and exported, the manufacturer is entitled to a return of all the duty 
paid less 10 per cent. So that if we are ready now for the foreign mar¬ 
ket, if we are ready to compete with England and France and Belgium 
by the use of free raw materials from the other side, we have them in a 
large measure now, and no further legislation is needed to encourage 
our export trade. When we get able to supply ourselves with all the 
articles we use and employ, we can then address ourselves more intel¬ 
ligently to the foreign trade. This bill will aid in diminishing our 
great market for agricultural products. The market which consumes 
90 per cent, of our farm products is worth preserving and infinitely 
more important and valuable than any other. 

Let me pause here to say that free raw material has nothing to com¬ 
mend it to legislative favor which is not common to every other Amer¬ 
ican product. The same necessity for protection, within reasonable 
limits, applies to what are commonly called raw materials as to the 
finished or more advanced manufacture. There is no such thing as 
raw materials distinguished from other products of labor. Labor enters 
into all productions, the commonest as well as the higher forms. 

The ore costs something to mine it; the coal, to take it from the ground; 
the stone, to quarry it; much labor enters into the production of wool; 
leather costs something to tan; and to the extent that labor enters into 
their preparation, what are usually termed raw materials should have 
ratable protection with the completed product. Pig-iron is the raw 
material for bar-iron, and yet no one has been heard to advocate free pig- 
iron. Cloth is the raw material for the tailor, the finest steel is the crude 
material of the watchmaker, and so on interminably. There can be no 
just line drawn, and no reason exists for such a discrimination. When 
the country is ready for free trade let us have it in all things without 
exception or restriction. 

GROWTH OF POPULATION OP THE UNITED STATES. 

We forget in all our discussions the growth of the population of 
of the United States. We forget that about every twenty years a nation 
of people come to our shores, whose labor we employ and whose wants 


14 


we supply. Our population in the last fourteen years has increased 
fully 17,000,000—half of the entire population of Austria, three times 
the population of Belgium, 70 per cent, more than the entire popula¬ 
tion of Brazil, equaling the population of Egypt, and one-half of the 
population of Great Britain and Ireland. These become the consum¬ 
ers of the products of the farm and increase them, and enlarge our 
market. They are the best customers and the most certain and reliable. 

A HOMK MARKET FOB FARMERS—A LOW TARIFF DESTBUCTIVB OF AGRICULTURAL 

INTERESTS. 

The farmer is best off with a home market. The farmer himself 
knows this, and no amount of rhetoric can deceive him. The gentle¬ 
man from New York [Mr. Hewitt], himself a practical business man, 
recognizes it. The fathers of the Republic saw it and proclaimed it. 
We can only have a profitable home market by encouraging manufact¬ 
uring industries. “Plant the forge by the farm ” is the old doctrine, 
and it is as true now as it was when uttered. 

Mr. Ewing, of Ohio, a distinguished United States Senator, express¬ 
ed the necessity for manufacturing and its benefits to agriculture in the 
following language, on February 17, 1832, the tarift' then being under 
consideration in the Senate: 

In short, every portion of the world was searched by our intelligent mer¬ 
chants, and all combined did not furnish a market adequate to our surplus pro¬ 
ductions. Every farmer in Ohio long knew and felt the pressure consequent 
upon this state of things. Year after year their stacks of wheat stood unthrashed, 
scarcely woi*th the manual labor of separating the grain from the straw ; so low 
was it reduced in comparison with manufactured articles that I have known 
forty bushels of wheat given for a pair of boots. Such was the state of thin^ 
in the Western country prior to and at the time of the revision of the tarift' in 
1824. 

Then, sir, at the period of which I am speaking, 1822,1823, and 1824, which I 
refer to as the season of the greatest agricultural depression, especially in the 
West, we had supplied and were supplying every country upon the globe with 
our products to the extent that they would receive, and even beyond it. We 
had glutted every market, and by the excess of the supply which we furnished 
we lessened the aggregate sum which we received in return. This was the case 
with every article of our products, whether of the forest or the field; everything 
which we had to export or which our labor would produce, and which could be 
made the subject of exchange, was sent abroad and exchanged for foreign 
manufactured articles. 

The state of things which I have dwelt upon somewhat at large was that of 
our whole country in 1823- 24. It was in the situation of the farmer, with his ten 
boys, who could find employment but for eight; and such more especially was 
the situation of the Middle and Western States. The low state to which our 
farming interest was reduced, the low price to which our fine lands and the 
products of our lands had sunk, produced unexampled pecuniary distress and 
called aloud for relief. Our statesmen were not slow in discovering the cause 
of the evil and in applying the remedy; hence their united support of the tariff 
of 1824, the merit of which I claim for them, for the Middle and Western States. 

This honorable Senator graphically describes the effect upon agri- 
cultnre of the low tariff prior to 1824, and subsequent history and ex¬ 
perience are only confirmatory of what he so strikingly said then. And 
to this feast the controlling wing of the Democratic party invites you. 

WHAT PROTECTION HAS DONE;. CONDITION OF THE COUNTRY UNDER IT. 

We invite your attention to another and better picture. The growth 
of this country in the last twenty years is the wonder of the world. Our 
manufacturing products have increased from $1,885,000,000 in 1860 to 
$5,369,000,000 in 1880. The agricultural development shows a like 
gratifying progress. There was an increase in the acreage in farms from 
407,000,000 acres in 1860 to 536,000,000 acres in 1830, an increase of 32 
per cent.; and in the value of farms an increase from $6,645,000,000 in 
1860 to $10,197,000,000 in 1880. We started in 1830 with 23 miles of 


15 


railway. In 1860 we had 30,635 niilevS; in 1880 we bad 84,393 miles; 
in 1881 we had 94,147 miles; and now we*have about 120,000 miles. 
Our material w'ealth has increased beyond parallel in everything which 
goes to make a nation strong and self-dependent. The energies of our 
people have opened up new avenues of industrial development, have over¬ 
come what seemed insuperable barriers. The finances of the country 
were never in better condition than to-day. Our exports during the last 
fiscal year were over $804,000,000, as against $733,000,000 during the pre¬ 
ceding year, an increase of nearly $71,000,000. The value of the exports 
of manufactures from the United States during the last year -was 
$112,000,000 in round numbers, as against $103,000,000 during the pre¬ 
ceding year, and exceeded the exports of any previous year in the his¬ 
tory of the country. Our exports have exceeded our imports over 
$100,000,000, so that the balance of trade is in our favor. We are rap¬ 
idly reducing the national debt, and have been doing so for years at an 
unexampled rate. Interest-charge has been reduced, and we present 
the spectacle of a government, in less than twenty years from the close 
of a great, destructive, and wasteful war, with unprecedented credit 
and a surplus of revenue in the Treasury. 

This has all been accomplished during an era of protective tariffs, 
which the free-traders characterize as extortion and robbery upon the 
people, destructive of their energies, and obstructive of industrial prog¬ 
ress and national development. How it contrasts with the low tariff 
period from 1847 to 1860, when we had practically a revenue tariff, 
such as is advocated by the Democratic party of to-day! It was a period 
of universal business depression, deficiencies in the public Treasury, 
when both nation and individuals were compelled to borrow money at 
the most exorbitant rates of interest; and it was in this condition that 
the Republican party found the cofintry when it came into power on 
the 4th of March, 1861. The Democratic policy of the tariff was im¬ 
mediately reversed; and the splendid achievements in every department 
of industrial activity, the large revenues of the Government, its im¬ 
proved credit, and its present flourishing monetary conditions are the 
highest vindication of its policy. Every class in the country has been 
benefited. The necessities of life have been cheapened to the con¬ 
sumer. Every article of merchandise that has been made possible of 
manufacture in this country by reason of protective duties has been 
cheapened, and none have been enhanced in price. 

ENGLAND WANTS THIS LEGISLATION. 

England is more concerned to-day for the passage of this bill than any 
citizen or class of citizens of the United States, unless it be the import¬ 
ers. She is watching with the deepest concern the progress of this bill, 
and she dt-.s not refrain from saying that if it becomes a law it will put 
money into the pockets of her manufacturers. She does not hesitate 
to declare that from selfish motives she wants the full success of the 
Democratic party in this measure. Here is what her trade papers say. 

The London Iron and Coal Trades Review for December 7,1883, says: 

Our best customer for iron, steel, hardwares, and many other goods has long 
been the United States, notwithstanding the very heavy duties that are there 
levied, and the greatest interest is always manifested by our business men in 
American politics where they are likely to atlect the tariff It is pretty eviden 
that the protectionists are no longer to have it all their own way. 

The Machinery IMarket, a London publication, said in January last: 

The year is likely to see important political changes on the other side of the 
Atlantic which will have their influence on business here. Events move rapidly 


16 


in America, and the coming triumph of the Democratic party there means the 
triumph of the free-trade movement in the States. It is not to be supposed tliat 
there will be free imports into the States, but “a tariff for reveniie only,” which 
is the leading cry of the Democrats, will open an immense additional field for 
the sale of English manufactured goods in the States. 

The same journal said in March last: 

It appears, therefore, on the whole we are buying nearly as much in the way 
of manufactures in iron and steel, machinery, «&c., from the States as we are sell¬ 
ing to them. The result must be looked upon as miserable, and is not equal to 
our position as a manufacturing country. The United States is a producing 
country, not a manufacturing, in the sense to which Ave apply this term to our¬ 
selves. It is high time we turned our attention actively elscAAdiere for a better 
customer, not forgetting all the same to Avatch the opportunities Avhich the tariff’ 
reduction in the States Avill open out to us. 

The London Iron and Coal Trades Review for February 8,1884, says: 

Though our trade with the United States has fallen off very much of late, that 
country still occupies the position of our leading customer, and every change in 
its condition yet has its influence upon our market. It is, therefore, important 
to notice that the intelligence from the other side has been of a rather more en¬ 
couraging character during the last feAA' days. 

At present, and for some time past, there has been little chance of supplying 
English pig-iron at a profit in the States, owing to the very Iona"^ prices of native 
iron. But the most satisfactory ncAvs is that on Mon day Mr, Morrison, the chair¬ 
man of the Ways and Means Committee, introduced another tariff bill in the 
House of RepresentatiA'es. Considering that it Avas only last year that a tariff bill 
was passed, Avhichconsidei-ably reduced the duties on a large number of articles, 
the introduction of another bill so soon affords a sign that the protectiA-e doc¬ 
trine is a good deal “ played out.” The new bill proposes a reduction of 20 per 
cent, in the duties, to take effect from July 1. Mr. Mokrison and his colleagues, 
who havedraAA'ii up the bill, liaA’eshoAvn their wisdom in placing in the free-list 
a number of raw materials, such as copper and iron ores, slack, and coal. 

They bad not seen the amended bill Avhen this article was written 
for iron-ore, &c., have been left out of the new revision. 

Mr. MORRISON. I would be glad if it was in. 

Mr. McKinley. I have no doubt you would be glad if it was in, 
and I am only surprised the distinguished gentleman should liave per¬ 
mitted his own convictions to be overruled by that little factious ele¬ 
ment in his own party that would control legislation. [Applause.] 

Though the bill maj' not pass without considerable modification, it will prob¬ 
ably result in a substantial reduction. 

To these opinions we may add the following blunt but frank admis¬ 
sion by the London Spectator on the 8th of December last: 

Of course the North of England holds that American free trade Avould be 
greatly to the interest of British manufacturers. 

And this from the Pall Mall Gazette: 

The progress of the Morrison bill Avill be Avatched with considerable interest by 
English exporters to the American market, inasmuch as it can hardly fail to tend 
in their favor. 

This deep solicitnde of our English friends is of course unselfish and 
philanthropic; it is all for our benefit, for our good, for our prosperity. 
It is disinterested purely and arises from the earnest wish of our Eng¬ 
lish manulacturers to see our own grow and prosper. 

They want this market. It is the best in the world. They can not 
get it wholly while our tariff remains as at present. They can not get it 
so long as our manufactures can be maintained. They must be de¬ 
stroyed, their fires must be put out, and this Congress is to-day en¬ 
gaged in an effort to help England, not America, to build up English 
manufacturers at the expense of our own. 

DEMOCRATIC TRIUMPH A VICrrORY FOR ENGLAND. 

The foreign manufacturers do not conceal their deep interest in the 
success of the Democratic party. They do not conceal the reason for 


% 


17 


such interest. It is because the party stands for a doctrine which will 
break down American competition and open up the market of this 
great nation to the products of English skill, English labor, and Eng¬ 
lish capital. Why, sir, they saw the first glimpses of the realization 
of their theories in the elections throughout this country last fall. ' 
They heralded as the dawning victory for free trade the triumph of that 
sentiment in the organization of this House in December last. That 
victory was welcomed everywhere upon the other side and by the im¬ 
porters on this. There was not a manufacturer in England who did 
not see in that overwhelming defeat of the protection sentiment in the 
Democratic party, in the setting aside of one of its oldest and most 
trusted leaders, gain and prosperity to him, distress and loss to his 
American competitors. They rejoiced and were made glad. 

IMPORTERS CELEBRATE DEMOCRATIC VICTORIES. 

One firm of importers celebrated that free-trade victory by christen¬ 
ing a line of English goods with the significant trade-mark, “ The Car¬ 
lisle shape” [laughter and applause], and published it as “the com¬ 
ing thing ” [applause], named in honor of Speaker Caklisle, to whom 
the country looked to reduce the present outrageous tariff on crock¬ 
ery. [Applause. ] This Democratic House is now employed in the di¬ 
rection of this suggestion under the leadership of my distinguished 
friend, Mr. Moerison. This line of goods named for one of the ablest 
and purest Democrats in the House or the country comes from his rep¬ 
resentative capacity. He stands at the head of a great political organi¬ 
zation committed to the English system, which all England believes 
will increase her prosperity and enrich her manufacturers. 

These goods, made in a foreign pottery with foreign materials, foreign 
labor, and foreign capital, are fittingly crowned with the head of the 
British lion. [Applause, ] Pass this bill and you will all have shapes 
and be honored with like manifestations of approval. [Applause.] I 
know my honored friend the Speaker craves no such distinction; I 
know he would shrink from such public demonstrations of approval, 
and I believe he will not feel flattered by this well-intentioned compli¬ 
ment; but they could not avoid expressing in some public way their 
appreciation of his victory. This is but an advanced manifestation of 
the joy which will be felt on the other side should the bill pass. 

A PROGRESSIVE MEASURE. 

This bill is a progressive measure. You can discern that at a glance. 
It commences where we started in 1860, and occupies the ground we 
broke twenty-four years ago and which we abandoned long since. It 
has none of the virtues of originality, and the chief claim to merit is the 
fact that it is something a little like what we approved in 1860, forget¬ 
ful of the fact that in 1860 we were legislating for 30,000,000 of people, 
and now have 55,000,000, and that all the economic and industrial con¬ 
ditions have changed. It was a good thing then, wise and necessary. 
Your party then opposed it, and now that we have outgrown it, advanced 
from it, you are ready to adopt it. We are glad even at this late day to 
have your approval of that great measure, which served its purpose at 
the time—and it was a high and noble one. We would have been more 
gratified could you have seen its merits a generation ago, when it was 
alive and in force, and suited to our needs and essential to our then 
revenue necessities and industrial development. 

FREE TRADE CONTRADICTIONS. 

There is a remarkable exhibition of free trade confusion and contra- 
McK——2 


18 


diction in the speech of my learned colleague [Mr. Hurd] made in this 
House on the 8th of April last, in his discussion of the wool bill. 

First. He asserts that the manifest effect of an increase of the duty upon 
wool is to increase the price of woolen goods, because it adds to the 
price of the wool, to which he is unalterably opposed because it im¬ 
poses new burdens upon the consumersofVool, who use it “as a shelter 
to the houseless and a covering to the shivering.” 

Second. He asserts that a high duty upon foreign wool means a low 
price for American wool, the logic of which is that the higher the duty 
upon the foreign article the lower the price of the domestic one. Now if 
cheap wool be the real necessity of the manufacturer, as my colleague 
states in his first proposition, to the end that the laboring man may have 
cheap goods, then, according to his second proposition, the way to se¬ 
cure it is to increase the duty. 

If he would do that the wool-grower would be satisfied and the con¬ 
sumers for whom he speaks ought not to complain. 

He does not stop with the mere assertion that protective duties have 
lowered the price of wool to the consumer, but he gives historical tacts. 
He says “during the low duties on wool from 1847 to 1861 the farmers 
got 5 cents per pound more for their wool than they have received from 
1867 until now under the high protective tariff adopted in the year last 
named. ’ ’ He enforces his argument by invoking the experience of Eng¬ 
land and France, and if his proposition be true then protecth^e duties 
are not added to the cost of the imported goods, and if he wants cheap 
wool for his shivering consumers the course to pursue is not to reduce 
the duty on wool as proposed in the Morrison bill, but to increase it as 
provided for in the Converse bill; and according to his second proposi¬ 
tion the latter would secure cheap wool. 

A FREE TRADER CONFESSES AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MAKE A MARKET FOE 

THE FARMERS. 

I was glad, too, to find my colleague conceding, as he did, “that it 
is the American manufacturer who makes the market for the American 
farmers, and just as he is prosperous or depressed is the price of wool high 
or low,” and the same must be true of every product of the farm. So 
that if we would bring prosperity to the American wool-grower and the 
American farmer, we must foster and encourage and maintain our woolen 
and other manufactures at all hazards, and this can only be done by 
adequate duties levied upon foreign goods which compete with our own 
manufactures. Free trade or a revenue tariff will glut this market with 
foreign woolens made by foreign labor cheaper than our own, and the 
effect will be to break down our woolen factories “ which makes the mar¬ 
ket for our own farmers. ” This is the proposition of the Morrison bill, 
plain and simple, or else this market will be overcrowded with foreign 
wools admitted at low duty, the effect of which will be to force ruinoui. 
prices upon our own producers and eventually destroy this valuable 
production in the United States. 

I warn you that every assault made upon the woolen manufacturer, 
no matter how slight, is directed alike at the wool-grower. You can 
not cripple the one without diminishing the value of the other. The 
woolen manufacturers do not want free wool. They so declared before 
the Ways and Means Committee. They require our wools, and it will 
be to their serious disadvantage to curtail the production in the United 
States. The wool-grower does not want woolen goods to come into 
this country free of duty. They want a market. They know that 
when the manufacturer thrives the price of wool is good and firm. 


19 


AGRICULTURE AND MANUFACTURES ESSENTIAL TO EACH OTHER. 

Agriculture and manufactures should go hand in hand; the one en¬ 
riches the other, the one trades with the other—they are mutually de¬ 
pendent one upon the other. There is no conflict of interest. Agri¬ 
culture increases in its products and its wealth with the growth and 
increase of manufactures. Prices are better, steadier, and more reliable 
to the farmer with prosperous manufacturing industries employing 
labor which consumes and does not compete with his products. Impair 
or destroy our ability to manufacture, strike down, any of our great 
manufactures, and the farmer would be the first to seriously feel the 
loss. Dismiss the army of operatives from the workshop and send them 
to the great unoccupied and fertile lands of the West and the farmer 
would not only lose just so many consumers or customers, but more 
than that, he would find them as his competitors in the field of pro¬ 
duction. 

THIS BILL WILL REDUCE THE PAY OP WORKMEN, SKILLED AND UNSKILLED. 

Finally, and of greater importance than all else, the effect of this bill 
will be to reduce the price of labor in the United States. 

My friend the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means in¬ 
dicates dissent by his manner. 

Mr. MORRISON. We are doing that every day. 

Mr. McKinley. Yes; it has been done. If the gentleman will re¬ 
member, there has been general depression all over the world, and 
wages have stood some reduction. But the proposition you make to¬ 
day, if it goes into operation, will inevitably reduce the price paid labor 
in the United States. 

This is the inevitable logic of the bill, and no amount of argument 
can escape it. Said an intelligent manufacturer, Mr. Day, of Ohio, in 
his statement before our committee: 


No reduction of duty can be made without crippling our manufactories. There 
is no point on which we can make a reduction of cost, except on our skilled labor, 
unless we are compelled to cut down the wages of common labor and all. We 
get our common labor at the mai-ket price, which is fixed not by us, but by the 
price of common labor in the neighborhood. We get our coal, as cheaply, of 
course, as we can. We get our sand as cheaply as we can. We get our materials 
of all sorts as cheaply as we can. And there is nothing on which there is a range, 
or on which we can make a reduction, except skilled labor. Therefore, what¬ 
ever reduction of duty is made must of necessity, to a very large degree, fall 
upon our skilled labor. 


Mr. MORRISON. 
Mr. MCKINLEY, 
it? 

Mr. MORRISON. 
Mr. McKinley. 
Mr. MORRISON. 
Mr. McKinley. 


Is that the same Mr. Day who imports his labor? 
It is the same ]\Ir. Day. And do you object to 


Yes, sir; Ido. 

You object to his importing labor? 

Certainly. 

Then I want to say if the gentleman from Illi¬ 
nois objects to his importing labor into this country he does more than 
his associate on the Ways and JMeans Committee of this House [Mr. 
Hewitt] does. When Mr. Day was being examined he put the ques¬ 
tion to him: “Did you import skilled labor into the United States?’^ 
And Mr. Day said he did, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Hewitt] proclaimed, and it is in the public record, that Mr. Day was a 
benefactor. And the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Herbert] and 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mills] did not think Mr. Day had 
any apologies to make; and the gentleman from Texas who sits before 
me does not think so now. 


20 


I am not here to justify or defend Mr. Day. I am not here to defend 
any manufacturer or his methods. But I am here to say that just to 
the extent you reduce the duties on imports to that extent the prices of 
labor must come down in order to enable us to compete with the man¬ 
ufacturers on the other side. That is the inevitable logic. Dive us as 
cheap labor as they have in England (which I do not want) and we need 
no protection. [Applause.] 

Let me call a witness from the ranks of the advocates of this bill. 
Said Mr. Theodore W. Morris, of New York, an importer and free¬ 
trader, before the same committee: 

Mr. McKinley. Do I understand you to say that the reduction proposed by 
the pending bill would not affect the rate of wages? I thought you said it 
would. 

Mr. Morris. I said that that was the usual tendency; not that it necessarily 
would do so. 

Mr. McKinley. What do you say about it now ? 

Mr. Morris. That that has been usually the tendency. I think that that has 
been the experience; but I do not admit that it is a necessity by any means. 

Mr. McKinley. What would be the effect of a reduction of duty upon impor¬ 
tation; would the importation increase? 

Mr. Morris. I think that if we could possibly dissipate these false and unbusi¬ 
ness ideas (in reference to special legislation) that any people go into business 
from philanthropic motives and in the great interest of American labor, and if 
you could put them closely and fairly on a business basis, there would be very 
much less of these troubles. I have no disposition to go into abstract proposi¬ 
tions. We are meeting at this time an exceptional, phenomenal condition of 
affairs We have an unusual and exceptional price paid for labor, which is, in 
my judgment, beyond all wisdom. If I cared to do so I could mention facts 
which would show how absurd these conditions of affairs are, and how fre¬ 
quently and how naturally they follow special legislation. 

Mr. Kelley. State wherein the absurdity of the prices which we pay to labor 
consists. 

Mr. Morris. That demands, perhaps, an extended answer, and is also an ab¬ 
stract proposition which I do not feel competent to answer, except so far as my 
Individual convictions go. 

Mr. Kelley. That is M'hat we want. 

Mr. Morris. Because it establishes, first of all, a basis for legislation, and be¬ 
cause all admit that that is a very dangerous thing in this country. It establishes 
a basis for legislation, because in all the debates that take place in Congress we 
shall have brought up to us this illustration, how magnificently American labor 
is paid— 

The free-traders do not like this form of discussion— 

We shall ha\'e brought up to us the fact that we pay American labor 200 or 300 
per cent, more than is paid to the pauper labor of Europe. These will be estab¬ 
lished as precedents to form the basis of many arguments. You will naturally 
see that the condition is an exceptional condition, an unhealthy condition. 
Another very serious difficulty about it, and which I think an absurdity, is that 
it is the creation of an additional obstacle to anything like an uniformly just 
price for labor, when normal conditions exist, because these men receiving (as I 
understand they are receiving) a large advance over their av'erage compensa¬ 
tion will not be content, when the conditions of the market readjust them¬ 
selves, to accept a reduction of wages; and anything in the shape of economy 
will be repugnant to them. That is another reason why I think the condition 
unfortunate. Manufacturers are creating for themselves an obstacle which in 
the future will be a severe trial to them. 

THE LABORING MEN DECLARE THAT THIS MEASURE WILL REDUCA THEIR WAGES 

Said Mr. Thomas Williams, a workingman who appeared before the 
committee: 

They had been asked to come here and state how the workingmen looked at 
the matter of the proposed tariff reduction, and how it affected workingmen. 
He was aware that it was often said that the tariff upon imported goods was of 
no benefit to the workingmen. He was not a public speaker, and had never 
been accustomed to anything of the sort. He worked in the mill and earned his 
own living by boiling or puddling, and he thought he knew something whereof 
he spoke. He happened to have been born on the other side of the Atlantic, and 
he had worked in an iron mill in England for some time, so that he could tell 
the committee from his personal experience how the matter was in free trade 


21 


linsland and how it was in America. He had worked in England five years in 
wliat was known as the Dowlais works. He had been puddling there for five 
years, and the wages which had been paid to him were about 5s. 6d. a ton, or at the 
rate of :jl.25 for puddling iron. And even at that the men did not get very steady 
work. At the end of the week, when they got their pay and paid out of it for 
their living, there was not very much left to themselves. He was aware that it 
was often said that living wa.s cheaper in England than in this country, but he 
denied that statement. He had lived or lodged (as it was called there), paying 
so much a week for his room, and letting the landlady buy his food for him. 
He did not live there as workingmen lived in this country. For instance, in 
the morning when he got up to go to work he got a cup of tea and a piece of 
bread and butter. At dinner time he got perhaps a little meat, but not always. 
He generally managed to eat meat at dinner three or four times a week, but 
never except at dinner. In the evening for tea, as it is called, he sometimes got 
bread and butter, and if he wanted to be extravagant he might eat an egg or 
two, but that was accounted a great extravagance. The women earned in the 
Dowlais works about 9 pence a day, or 18 cents. They were employed in un¬ 
loading coal and in throwing coal out of the ears, and otherwise doing the coarse 
work of men. If one of them got a shilling a day it was considered good wages. 

He contrasted the condition of affairs in that country under free trade with the 
condition of things in America; and what did he find ? He found that the pud- 
dler or the boiler in this country was paid $5,50 a ton. He was aware that in 
some parts of the country men were working for less than that, but in Pitts¬ 
burgh and west of Pittsburgh they wex’e receiving $5.50 a ton for puddling; and 
what was the result? The men in the old country got only $1.25 per day at the 
highest average, while here they got $3.25 or $3.50 a day. It occurred to him, as 
an American citizen, that it was not right for American law-makers to go to 
work and say to the men who had left England and come to this country with 
the intention of benefiting their own condition that they must now compete 
with that same system of labor which they had in England. He ventured to 
say (and he thought the facts would bear him out) that if the proposed tariff 
were enacted into a law the time was not far distant (if workmen had any work 
at all here) that they would have to compete -with English labor, and would 
have to live just as workmen lived in the Old Country. As an American citizen 
he objected to that. He did not believe that the workingmen of America should 
be compelled to compete with the pauper labor, or the comparatively pauper 
labor, of England or of any part of Europe. He had a somewhat extensive ao- 
quaintance with workingmen in that country. At the Dowlais works, where he 
had worked, there were employed altogether about 15,000 men, including the 
iron-ore miners, coal miners, the blast-furnace men, and the men who worked 
in the mills. And of all that number he did not know more than two or three 
men who owned their own homes. 

Said Mr. A. C. White, another workingman: 

He had come to request that the pending measure be not passed, believing that 
it would not only injure the workingmen but the public at large. 

He believed that at the present time any tariff legislation would be Injurious 
to the best interests of the country. The workingmen protested against further 
action being taken in the matter until the tariff bill of last winter should have 
been sufficiently tried. It was yet an experiment and it was not known whether 
that bill would be for good or for evil. A great many of the workingmen held 
that the tariff'legislation of last winter was unnecessary, uncalled for, and im- 
wise. 

They believed that this country should have a good protective tariff for various 
reasons. The workingmen of this country did not desire to be brought down to 
the level of English workingmen. They believed that workingmen being Amer¬ 
ican citizens were entitled to all the rights and privileges belonging to them. 
They had a right to live decently and respectably and to be able to clothe and 
educate their children, to send them to college and fit them to be members of 
Congress and Senators, if need be. The workingmen were part of the people 
and they believed that legislation should be for the benefit of the people as a 
whole. 

Said Mr. D. T. Williams, another workingTnan; 

The impression seemed to have gained ground that manufacturers who came 
here came all the time for their own benefit merely. He wanted to impress upon 
the committee the fact that it would be a benefit to the workingmen as well to 
let the tariff remain as it is and not to lower it, because if thetarhf were lowered 
their wages would be lowered on the 1st of June next. 

The officers of the Amalgamated Iron and Steel Association made 
like statements, enforcing them with facts and figures, and I notice by 
the public press that a few days ago the officers of one of the leading 


labor organizations of the country met in the city of Pittsburgh, as 
is the rule of their order, to agree upon the rates of wages to be sub¬ 
mitted to their employers for the ensuing year, and after discussion 
agreed upon a schedule of prices to be insisted upon, provided the Mor¬ 
rison bill was not enacted into law; and if it was, then they would be 
compelled to submit lower rates. The workingmen themselves, with¬ 
out exception, recognize the inevitable reduction of the wages of labor 
under the operation of this bill. The reduction of labor in any branch 
of industry, or the diminution of the power to employ labor, leads to 
a reduction in the labor price in every field of employment. Not only 
do the workmen recognize this hard fact, but the manufacturers as well. 
Said Mr. Hewitt, of New York, in his speech March 27 last: 

Now comes the question, how can you make manufactures grow ? How can 
you enlarge their area? 

You must therefore cheapen cost. How can you cheapen the cost of manu¬ 
factures? In only one of three ways. The cost of manufactures consists in 
capital, labor, and materials. 

Can you cheapen capital ? To-day capital is cheaper in the United States than 
In any other country in the world. 

Can you cheapen labor? Where is the man who is going to run next fall for 
Congress who will get up here and say be will advocate any policy which will 
reduce the wages of labor? 

Then you are brought down by the very necessities of the case to cheapen 
raw materials. Now, how can you cheapen raw materials? Only by removing 
the duties which press upon them. And when you have taken the duties otf 
raw materials you have protected the manufacturer, because he can produce 
his ware cheaper; you have protected the laborer because the necessity for re¬ 
ducing his wages, which otherwise would exist, is avoided. 

Bnt this bill does not give the raw materials required by tbe gentle¬ 
man from New York [Mr. Hewitt], so that the reduction of the labor 
is inevitable to cheapen the cost of production. This conclusion can 
not be avoided under the bill now before us. 

The difference in the cost of labor in other countries and this, which 
enters into the product which competes with ours, must be equalized 
by the tariffs or the higher wages mast come down. 

Mr. Hewitt admits this difference. My friend from Illinois [Mr. 
Morrison] seemed to dissent a moment ago when I said there was a 
difference in the rate of wages. 

Mr. MORRISON. I did not, sir. There is a great difference in the 
rate of wages in some industries, and some difference in all. 

Mr. McKinley. I beg the gentleman’s pardon. The gentleman 
from Illinois, in view of the statements I have made within the last 
five minutes, now admits there is a difference. I thank him for the 
frank confession. 

Mr. MORRISON. I have never denied it. The gentleman knows 
he is mistaken. I have admitted it in every speech I ever made in this 
House. 

Mr. McKinley. I have some of the gentleman’s speeches here; I 
do not care to go into them; but I have always understood from the gen¬ 
tleman that while there might be some small difference in the wages be¬ 
tween the two countries the wages brought more on the other side, would 
buy more of the necessities; while there might be a little difference in 
the sum total of pay received there was practically no difference when 
the purchasing power was taken into account. 

Mr. MORRISON. That is a different question, and one about which 
I have not spoken. 

Mr. McKINLEY. Well, if the gentleman never said it, it certainly 
has been said by those who advocate this bill. I would not do him 


23 


any injustice. I know that it has been said over and over again that 
this difference in the cost of labor which we talk about is wholly vis¬ 
ionary. 

. AMERICAN WAGES THE BEST IN THE WORLD. 

Our wages are higher here than in any other nation of the world, 
and we are all proud and grateful that it is so. I know it is denied, 
but experience outweighs theories or misleading statistics. One thing 
we do know is that our work people do not go abroad for better wages, 
and every other nationality comes here for increased wages and gets them. 
The gentleman Irom New York [Mr. Hewitt] does not seek to escape 
this difficulty by a denial, but frankly said in a speech made in the 
first session of the Forty-seventh Congress: ‘ ‘ But the difference in wages 
does exist, and there are branches of industry which can not be carried 
on without an equivalent compensation in the form of protective duties 
or of a bounty from the public Treasury. In Great Britain and the 
United States the rate of wages is on the average about 50 per cent, 
higher here than there.” He puts it much too low. 

We are confronted with this problem at the very threshold of this 
discussion, and we must meet it. The proposition of the chairman ol 
the Committee of Ways and Means will result in reducing the wages of 
labor or the destruction of many of our most valuable industries, and 
the deprivation of employment to thousands. The one or the other 
alternative must come; either will be most disastrous and attended by 
business (>apression and individual suffering. 

We must not reduce the price paid to labor; it is already sufficiently 
low. We can only prevent it by defeating this bill, and it should be 
done without unnecessary delay. The sooner the better, and remove 
this menace which hangs over all of our industrial life and threatens 
the comfort and independence of millions of American workingmen. 

WOOL INTERESTS ASSAILED BY THE BILL. 

The bill strikes down the duty upon wool, and under its provisions 
the duty on wool valued at over 24 cents, is to be 9 cents per pound. 

The duties under the present law are, on wool valued at 30 cents or 
less, 10 cents per pound, and over 30 cents, 12 cents per pound. This 
enormous reduction is proposed in the presence of a universal sentiment 
among the farmers of the United States for an increase of duties upon 
foreign wools, and in the face of Democratic assurances in at least one 
State of the Union that the duties should be increased. Great solici¬ 
tude is displayed by our opponents for the farmers of the country. And 
yet in the only case where they can be directly benefited by a protective 
duty it is proposed to wipe it out. They are rich in professions to this 
great producing class, but barren of fulfillment. 

ALL INDUSTRIES INJURIOUSLY AFEECTED BY PROPOSED LEGISLATION. 

Every one of the leading industries of this country will be injuriously 
affected by this proposed change, and no man can predict the extent of 
it. Cottons and woolens, the producers of wool, iron, steel, and glass 
must suffer disastrously if this bill is enacted into law, and the propri¬ 
etors of these establishments are neither robbers or highwaymen, as 
the free-traders love to characterize them. They have been real bene¬ 
factors, and while some of them have grown opulent, in the main they 
do not represent the rich classes of the country. Their entire capital 
is in active employment. Many of them are large borrowers. Your 
proposed action will affect the values of their plant, useless except for the 
purposes employed, will diminish the value of their invested capital. 


24 


will decrease their sales and the ability of their customers’ to buy, 
and in many cases result in total overthrow and bankruptcy. You 
can do this if you will. You have the power in this House to accom¬ 
plish this great wrong, but let me beg of you to pause before you com¬ 
mence the work of destroying a great economic system under which 
the country has grown and prospered far in advance of every other nation 
of the world. A system established by the founders of the Govern¬ 
ment, recognized by the first Congress which ever sat in deliberative 
council in this nation, sanctioned in the second act ever passed by 
Congress, upheld by our greatest statesmen, living or dead, vindicated 
by great results and justified by all of our experience, achieving in^s- 
trial triumphs without a parallel in the world’s history. Its mainte¬ 
nance is yet essential to our progress and prosperity. The step proposed 
is a grave one. No man on this floor can determine its consequences or 
predict its results. 

A LEAP IN THE DARK. 

It is a leap in the dark. No interest is pressing it. No national ne¬ 
cessity demands it. No true American wants it. If it is a party neces¬ 
sity to enforce Democratic doctrines and discipline a little segment of 
the party, you can afford to wait, or clear your decks of mutineers in 
some other way; let the ship be saved and punish your insubordinate 
associates without endangering great interests temporarily confided to 
your care. The interests of this great people are h igher and greater than 
the ambitions or interests of any party. The free-traders have already 
demonstrated that they are in control of the Democratic party, that they 
are a large majority of that political organization; but they are happily 
in the minority in the country. They may dictate the policy here by 
party caucus, they may disturb the business of the country while yet 
in power, but they will not, under the policy they are now pursuing, 
be long permitted to dominate the popular branch of Congress, happily 
the only branch of the Government which they now control. [Great 
and continued applause.] 


O 



Restoration of Duty on Imported Wool. 

% 

SPEECH 

OF 

HON. WILLIAM McKINLEY, Je., 

OF OHIO, 

In the House of Representatives, 

Monday, April 7, 1884. 

The House having under consideration the bill (H. R. 1218) to restore the dirty 
on imported wool— 

Mr. McKINLEY said: 

Mr. Speaker: In the few minutess which by the courtesy of my col¬ 
league I am permitted to occupy I will have little time to more than 
express my hearty approval of the bill now under consideration and my 
earnest desire that it may be enacted into law. 

The general revision'of the tariff made by the last Congress reduced 
the duties on wool to 10 cents and 12 cents per pound on first and second- 
class wools. That is, it abolished the 10 and 11 per cent, ad valorem 
which under the act of 1867 were assessed on these two classes of wool 
in addition to the specific duty of 10 and 12 cents per pound. 

The bill now before us proposes to restore the ad valorem rates, so 
that hereafter the duties to be levied and collected upon these two 
grades of wool shall be 10 cents per pound and 11 per cent, ad valorem 
upon one class, and 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem 
upon the other. In a word, it restores the duties upon wool as fixed 
by the act of 1867. It is only proper that I should state that the last 
House never had an opportunity to vote upon the wool duty as a sepa¬ 
rate proposition, but was compelled to vote upon the Senate bill as 
agreed to in the conference committee as a whole. The alternative 
was then presented to the House of passing the bill as an entirety, which 
involved reductions in custom rates and large reductions of internal- 
revenue taxes amounting to $40,000,000 annually, or defeat it and thus 



2 


lose everything of good which the bill contained. Had the question of 
disturbing the wool duty been presented distinct and separate, the re¬ 
duction would never have taken place. This was shown when the 
Ways and Means Committee authorized one of its members to offer as 
a committee amendment the wool duties of 1867, which would have 
been presented and passed had the consideration of this schedule ever 
been reached in the House. Nor would the conference committee have 
failed to correct the wrong if it had not been made manifest by repeated 
votes in the Senate that the increase proposed upon wool would cer¬ 
tainly have defeated the bill in the Senate. 

The reduction was made under the circumstances I have named, and 
the injustice of it has come to be recognized by the Eepublican paidy 
and by many Democrats in Ohio and other States. We now have an 
opportunity to do justice to this important article of American produc¬ 
tion, and the jiroposition of my colleague, plain and simple, is to cor¬ 
rect the injustice and place the wool industry of the country where the 
legislation of last winter found it. 

The act of 1867, which this bill proposes to restore, was in every 
sense a just one, equitable in its provisions, and time has demonstrated 
its practical benefits in the growth and development of wool produc¬ 
tion. In 1850 there were 21,723,220 sheep in dihe United States, pro¬ 
ducing 52,516,959 pounds of wool; in 1860 there were22,471,225 sheep, 
producing 60,264,913 pounds; in 1870 there were 28,477,951 sheep, 
producing 100,102,387 pounds; in 1880 there were 43,576,899 sheep, 
producing 235,648,834 pounds; in 1883, 50,500,000 sheep, producing 
320,000,000 pounds of wool. 

From 1860 to 1870, during the decade when the protective-tariff act 
of 1867 went into operation, the number of sheep increased 25 per cent., 
while in the decade between 1850 and 1860 it was less than 4 per cent., 
while the price of wool has decreased to the consumer, amply demon¬ 
strating that adequate protection does not increase the cost of the pro¬ 
tected article. 

There are more than a million of our fellow-citizens directly interested 
in this form of production. They constitute the farmers of the country, 
great and small. They feel that a great wrong has been done them; that 
the value of their product has been most seriously diminished, and that 
unless Congress gives them the needed relief their business will be fur¬ 
ther seriously crippled and eventually destroyed; that sheep husbandry 


3 


in the older States will be a thing of the past, and the production of the 
finer grades of wool which enter so largely into domestic manufacture 
will be exclusively the product of Australiaand other foreign countries, 
which can result only to the injury of our own people, for when Aus¬ 
tralia once gets control of this market she will increase the price to the 
manufacturer and consumer. In every aspect, therefore, and for every 
interest in the United States this bill ought to pass. 

The farmers, busy with their own employments, do not often come to 
this legislative body asking for legislative relief, and when they do 
come their requests should receive the highest consideration, and when 
just and reasonable, as in this case, they should command prompt and 
favorable action. 

Petitions from all of the wool-growing States, extending from Yer- 
mont to California, have poured in upon this House almost daily from 
the opening of the session, urging the prompt restoration of the wool 
• • y of 1867. It is not Ohio alone, but every State in the Union is 

ncemed in your favorable action upon this bill. Their appeals should 
not go unheeded. I do not doubt that every member on this side, as a 
simple act of justice, will vote for this measure. It is in harmony with 
the principle of protection which we advocate as a party and the policy 
which we have always pursued. There should be no halting in re¬ 
sponse to their request. I earnestly appeal to you to vote for this bill, 
and with the aid of gentlemen on the other side we may to-day, so far 
as this branch of the legislative will can do, right this wrong. 

This motion requires a two-thirds vote, so with the entire vote of 
this side of the House we must have a large vote from the other side 
to succeed. May I appeal to the Democrats of this Ho use to aid gen¬ 
erously by their votes in this much-needed legislation ? I venture to 
do it the more boldly because your brethren last fall in Ohio, by plat¬ 
form, public speech, and campaign literature, assured the people in the 
most authoritative manner that the wool duty of 1867 should be re¬ 
stored at the beginning of this Congress. It was not the campaign clat¬ 
ter of irresponsible politicians, it was the voice and the utterances of 
the leaders of the party in the State supported by the leaders of the 
party in other States. 

Mr. DUNN. Who are they? 

Mr. McKinley, why, the whole Democratic party. I hold in my 
hand a pamphlet issued by the authority of the Ohio State central 


4 


Democratic committee, in which they said if Mr. Hoadly was elected 
governor of Ohio that this Congress, which fortunately was Democratic 
(as they declared), on the very first days of its session should wipe •ut 
the iniquity infiicted on the wool-growers by the Republicans of the last 
Congress. The people heard and believed these party assurances, and 
thousands of wool-growers who had always theretofore voted otherwise 
voted the Democratic ticket, transferred the entire political power of 
the State from the control of the Republican to that of the Democratic 
party, captured the executive and both branches of the Legislature, 
and elected a United States Senator. And now that you have gathered 
the fruit of their faith and your promises, the farmers and wool-growers 
of the State demand and have a right to demand that you make good 
your pledges and keep faith with those who acted upon your assurances. 
You have secured the prize of victory—party success—now step up and 
keep your promises. [Applause on the Republican side of the House. ] 
Do I make this too strong ? Let me read you what your party said last 
September and j^ou will say that if they were dealing fair and honor¬ 
ably with the people then, they have a right to expect the prompt pjis- 
sage of the bill: 

I read from a pamphlet issued by the Democratic executive commit' 
tee of Ohio and sent broadcast over the State in the campaign of last fall: 

The Democrats propose to work industriously for power, with full confidence 
in the intelligence of the people, and when they obtain power, to at once repeal 
the iniquitous measure (the wool tariff). 

Is it possible to obtain a restoration of the duty entire? 

This is the question which every sheep-owner in Ohio is asking himself. We 
say to every farmer, and with all possible emphasis, that the question must be 
answered now. 

Next year will not do. The reason is clear; the issue has been raised in the 
present Ohio campaign, and the wool interest elsewhere, as well as the enemies 
of the wool interest, are unanimous in recognizing that the result of the Ohio 
oampaign Avill decide whether the duty shall be restored immediately, or 
whether its restoration shall be left to the chances of the future. 

The election of Hoadly, on the other hand, means the triumph of the Demo¬ 
crats and the success of their objects, of which the unconditional restoration of 
the duty on wool entire is one of the most important. This triumph will create 
a most irresistible sentiment throughout the nation in favor of the wool-growers, 
and when Congress meets next winter (it is, fortunately. Democratic in the 
House) the strength of public opinion will be so great that the President will 
not dare resist it and he will readily sign any measure brought forward for re¬ 
lief. The consequence will be that farmers will be able to retain their flocks and 
go on with the profitable production of wool. The election of a Democratic 
Legislature insures the election of a Democratic United States Senator from 
Ohio and largely increases the chances of having a Democratic majority in the 
United States Senate, and in that event the Democratic party will be in a situa- 


tiou to redeem its promise niaJde> to the wool-growers of Ohio in its State plat^ 
form. Farmers of Ohio, can you trust the party that has in our National Legis¬ 
lature outraged and robbed you at the bidding of the capitalists of New Eng¬ 
land ? Is there any hope for you from such a party, who have thus deliberately 
sacrificed your dearest and beet interest ? The party that created this grreat wrong 
can not be trusted to give you relief. The Democrats in Congress were your 
friends. They sought by every means in their power to prevent this wrong 
from being inflicted on you. Trust the Democratic party in this matter; it has 
promised to and will give you relief. 

Will you ignore these promises, so authoritatively made, and deny 
the great farming class this much-needed legislation? 

I am earnestly and heartily for this bill and sincerely hope the House 
will give it the requisite number of votes to insure its adoption, and 
thus demonstrate its purpose to carefully guard and protect the Amer¬ 
ican wool raised by the American farmer against the foreign competitor 
whose product is prepared for the market by a cheap labor—so cheap 
and illy paid that no farmer in the United States can or will enter with 
it the field of competition. Our farmers who have contributed so 
largely to the wealth and progress of this nation are justly entitled to 
the relief they ask. 

Mr. CONVERSE. I now yield to the gentleman from California for 
two minutes. 

Mr. COX, of New York. I rise to a point of order. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. COX, of New York. My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is this: 
The gentleman from Ohio has asked permission to print certain things 
which was not given by the House; that is, to print certain expressions 
used in the Ohio campaign last year. 

Mr. McKinley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COX, of New York. Let me ask the gentleman if he includes 
me in the list ? 

Mr. MCKINLEY. No; I do not. 

Mr. COX, of New York. I wish to correct a story that has been 
going the round on that subject. 

Mr. McKinley. I understood the gentleman from New York 
while he spoke in Ohio last fall for the Democratic party did not get 
on the platform of protection adopted by the Democratic party of that 
State. [Laughter and applause on the Republican side.] 

Mr. COX, of New York. You are right. I do not object to grant¬ 
ing permission to the gentleman to print. 


6 


The extent of this interest will be observed from the following sta¬ 
tistics: 

Statement showing for the United States the number of flocks of sheep^ ex¬ 
clusive of those on public land ranches, the figures being furnished hg Mr. 
Jacob R. Dodge, statistician Department of Agriculture. 

Alabama. 23,875 

Arizona. 39 

Arkansas. 20,595 

California. 4,326 

Colorado. 406 

Connecticut.. 3,194 

Dakota. 1,819 

Delaware. 1,986 

District of Columbia. 

Florida. 1,001 

Georgria. 25,514 

Idaho. 128 

Illinois. :i9,803 

Indiana. 54,069 

Iowa. 17,220 

Kansas. 3,804 

Kentucky. 60,598 

Louisiana... 5,449 

Maine. 34,132 

Maryland. 10,498 

Massachusetts. 3,488 

Michig:an. 62,119 

Minnesota. 24,208 

Mississippi. 15,466 

Missouri. 63,990 

Montana. 137 

Nebraska. 2,119 

Nevada. 97 

New Hampshire. 11,206 

New Jersey. 5,822 

New Mexico. 814 

New York. 75,523 

North Carolina. 52,541 

Ohio. 93,984 

Oregon. 4,605 

Pennsylvania. 72,425 

Rhode Island. 790 

South Carolina. 10,049 

Tennessee. 62,924 

Texas. 8,390 

Utah. 2,001 

Vermont. 16,573 

Virginia. 32,494 

Washington. 1,067 

West Virginia. 30,909 

Wisconsin. 58,487 

Wyoming. 44 


Total United States 


1,020,728 




















































7 


Sheep and wool. 


States and Territories. 


Sheep. 


Sheep on 
farms.* 


Ranch 
and ranee 
sheep.f 


Wool.! 


Alabama. 

Arizona. 

Arkansas. 

California. 

Colorado. 

Connecticut. 

Dakota. 

Delaware. 

District of Columbia 

Florida.. 

Georgia. 

Idaho. 

Illinois.. 

Indiana. 

Iowa.. 

Kansas.. 

Kentucky. 

Louisiana.. 

Maine. 

Maryland. 

Ma.ssachusett8. 

Michigan. 

Minnesota. 

Mississippi. 

Missouri. 

Montana. 

Nebraska. 

Nevada.. 

New Hampshire. 

New Jersey. 

New Mexico. 

New York. 

North Carolina. 

Ohio.. 

Oregon. 

Pennsylvania. 

Rhode Island.. 

South Carolina. 

Tennessee. 

Texas. 

Utah. 

Vermont. 

Virginia . 

Wa,shington. 

West Virginia. 

Wisconsin. 

Wyoming. 

Indian Territory. 

Total. 


Number. 
347,538 
466,524 
246,757 
5,727,349 
1,091,443 
59,431 
85,244 
21,967 


105,681 
527,589 
117,326 
1,037,073 
1,100,511 
4.55, .359 
629,671 
1,000,269 
1.35,631 
565,918 
171,184 
67,979 
2,189,389 
267,598 

287.694 
1,411,298 

279,277 
247,453 

230.695 
211.825 
117,020 

3,938,831 
1,71.5,180 
461,638 
4,902,486 
1,368,162 
1,776,598 
17,211 
118,889 
672,789 
.3,6.51,633 
.523,121 
4.39,870 
497,289 
388,883 
674,769 
1,336,807 
450,225 
55,000 


42,192,074 


Number. 
347,538 
76,524 
246,7.57 
4,152,349 
746,443 
.59,431 
30, 244 
21,967 


.56,681 
527,589 
27,326 
l.a37,073 
1,100,511 
4.55,359 
499,671 
1,000,269 
13.5,631 
565,918 
171,184 
67,979 
2,189,389 
267, .598 

287.694 
1,411,298 

184,277 
199,453 

133.695 
211,825 
117,020 

2,088,831 
1,715,180 
461,638 
4,902,486 
1,083,162 
1,776,598 
17,211 
118,889 
672,789 
2,411,633 
233,121 
4.39,870 
497,289 
292,883 
674,769 
1,336,807 
140,225 


35,192,074 


Number. 


390,000 

i’,’575',000 

345,000 


55,000 


49,000 


90,000 


130,000 


95,000 

48,000 

97,000 


1.850,000 


285,000 


1,240,000 

290,000 


96,000 


310,000 

55,000 


7,000,000 


Poxinds.l 
762,207 
313,698 
557,368 
16,798,036 
3,197,391 
230,133 
157,025 
97,946 


162,810 
1,289,560 
127,149 
6,093,066 
6,167,498 
2,971,975 
2,855,833 
4,592,576 
406,678 
2,776,407 
850,084 
299,089 
11,858,497 
1,.3.52,124 
734,643 
7,31.3,924 
995,482 
1,282,656 
655,012 
1,069,589 
441,110 
4,019,188 
8,827,195 
917,756 
25,003,756 
5,718,524 
8,470,273 
65.680 
272,758 
1,918,295 
6,928,019 
973,246 
2,5.51,113 
1,836,673 
1,389,123 
2,681,444 
7,016, 491 
691,650 


155,681,751 


* Exclusive of spring lambs. f Estimated. t Spring clip of 1880. §Not 
including the following items, the result of special investigation; Texas and 
■California fall clip of sheep reported on farms, 13,000,000 pounds; wool of other 
(ranch) sheep, 34,000,000 pounds; pulled wool and fleece of slaughtered sheep, 
38,000,000 pounds, making an aggregate of 240,681,751 pounds. 


O 



































































































N 


THE TA.EIFE. 

REDUCTION OF WAR TAXES. 


SPEECH 

OP 

HON. BENTON McMILLIN, 

ow thnis'essbe:, 

IN THE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


Friday, May 2, 1884. 


“ Equal and exact justice to all men.”—T homas Jefferson. 

“Cnnffress has no right under the Con.stitution to take money from the people 
unless it is required to execute some one of the .specitic powers intrusted to the 
Government; and if they raise more than is necessai-y, it is an abuse of the power 
of taxation, and unjust and oppressive. * * * No circumstance can justify it in 
assuming a iiower not given it by the Constitution, or in taking away the money 
of the people when it is not needed for some one of the powers of Govei nment.” 

—Andrew Jackson. 


WASHINGTON. 

1884. 


















SPEECH 


OP 

HON. BENTON McMILLIN. 


The Housebelngin Committee of the Whole House oa the state of the Union, 
and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5893) to reduce import duties ana 
war-tariff taxes— 


Mr. McMILLIN said: 

Mr. Chairman: The question presented by this bill for our con¬ 
sideration is not whether we shall or shall not have free trade. The 
real issue is, ‘ ‘ Shall there be a reduction of taxes—will we take thirty 
millions off the tax-payers^ or let it stay on them ?” Many of our citi¬ 
zens and most of the States, counties, and municipalities owe debts and 
implore us to reduce Federal taxes. Will we do it? That is the ques¬ 
tion. 


For twenty years the people have had to endure this burden. For 
twenty years they have been told to bear it patiently and by and by 
they should be relieved. For years the Democratic party has in its 
platforms and from the stump thundered against the great weight of 
taxes. The following extract from the Democratic platform of 1876, 
adopted at Saint Louis, is a specimen of our denunciations and prom¬ 
ises, and proves what I say: 

Reform is necessary in the sum and mode of Federal taxation, to the end that 
capital may be set free from distrust and labor lightly burdened. 

We denounce the present tariff levied upon nearly 4,000 articles as a monster 
piece of injustice, inequality, and false pretense. It yields a dwindling, not a 
yearly rising revenue. It has impoverished many industries to subsidize a few. 
It prohibits imports that might purchase the products of American labor. It has 
degraded American commerce from the first to an inferior rank on the high 
seas. It has cut down the sales of American manufactures at home and abroad 
and depleted the returns of American agriculture and industry followed by half 
our people. It costs the people five times more than it produces to the Treas¬ 
ury, obstructs the processes of production, and wastes the fruits of labor. It 

E romotes fraud, fosters smuggling, enriches dishonest officials, and bankrupts 
onest merchants. We demand that all custom-house duties shall be only for 
revenue. 


Believing these promises, the people hurled from power those who 
had imposed and retained the onerous system, and gave Democracy full 
sway in Congress. But divisions in our ranks existed, and our party 
failed to fulfill the pledges of tariff reform made and was relegated to 
the minority. The Republicans of the last Congress also shirked the 
issue. Instead of taking hold of the question manfully and patriotic¬ 
ally, that Congress went outside of the Constitution and shifted its 
duties off on a Tariff Commission, composed in the most part of men 
selected for the purpose of guarding particular interests. I raised my 
voice against its creation. I said then: 

Whenever Congress establishes this commission to do its work it will have 
voted a want of confidence in itself, and the people will vote a want of confi¬ 
dence in it. 



<'0 


\ 





/ 


4 

How true was my prediction the 70 Democratic majority here tells. 

Notwithstanding the Tarifi' Commission was composed of men chosen 
from particular protected industries, the necessity for reduction of the 
tariff was so great they reported that there should be a reduction of from 
20 to 25 per cent. The following is an extract from their report: 

Early in its deliberations the commission became convinced that a substantial 
reduction of tarifl’ duties is demanded, not by me?'e indisci’iminate popular 
clamor, but by the best conservative opinion of the country. 

******* 

Sucli a reduction of the existing tariff, the commission regards not only as a 
due recognition of public sentiment and a measure of justice to consumers, but 
one conducive to the general industrial prosperity, and which, though it may 
be temporarily inconvenient, will be ultimately beneficial to the special inter¬ 
ests affected by such reduction, 

^ 4: s); 

It would seem that the rates of duties under the existing tariff—fixed for the 
most part during the war, under the evident necessity at that time of .stimulat¬ 
ing to its utmost extent all domestic production—might be adapted, through 
reduction, to the present condition of peace, requiring no such extraordinary 
stimulus. 

* * * * * * * 

Entertaining these views the commission has sought to present a scheme of 
tarifl’ duties in which substantial reduction should be the distinguishing feat¬ 
ure. The average reduction of rates, including that from the enlargement of 
the free-list and the abolition of the duties on charges and commissions, at 
which the commission has aimed is not less on the average than 20 per cent., 
and it is the opinion of the commission that the reduction will reach 25 per 
cent. 

Mr. Chairman, how did the party that created the commission treat 
these recommendations? It disregarded them in almost every partic¬ 
ular. After confessing they did not know what to do without a com¬ 
mission’s instructions, they ignored its recommendations and thereby 
admitted that neither the commission nor they were capable of dealing 
with the subject intelligently. The people so believed, and crushed 
them out with such a defeat as has seldom overtaken a party in this 
country. Sir, when we look at the bill and remember the outrageous 
way in which it was passed, and the little relief it gave, we must con¬ 
clude the people were right in forcing them to go. 

THE TARIFF KOT MATERIALLY REDUCED. 

The bill they passed reduced the tariff only 1.74 per cent. The com¬ 
mission said the tax-payers were entitled to 25 per cent, reduction, but 
they were given less than 2 per cent. Not only this, but on many arti¬ 
cles essential to home comfort, and used in every-day life, which were 
alrejxdy taxed too highly, they increased the duty. They raised the 
duty on window glass, goblets, and other glassware. They increased 
the duty on tableware—stone, china, and earthen ware. They also in¬ 
creased it on cotton goods, such as domestics and sheetings. That on cot¬ 
ton goods was increased 2.51 per cent.; on earthen, stone, and china ware, 
13.11 per cent.; and on glass and glass ware, 1.48 per cent. These are 
but samples. Scores of others could be mentioned. When, however, 
that anomalous Congress came to legislate for the wealthy they relented. 
Their hard hearts softened, as they always do, and they reduced the 
tariff on silk and silk goods immensely. They then came sweeping down 
the list and reached mechanics’ tools. Here, again, they inflicted a great 
wrong by increasing the duty on many articles. All their vaunted love 
for the laborer vanished when the interests of that laborer came in con¬ 
flict with their protected pets. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, let him who votes against the Morrison bill 
remember that he votes to indorse and perpetuate this increase of du- 


5 


ties on the necessaries of life. Are gentlemen ready to say by their 
votes and voices not only that the war taxes should be kept up, but 
that it was right to increase them in 1883? Others may do as they 
please, but I feel that were I to cast any such vote I would deserve 
the condemnation of the noble people I have the honor to represent. 
The tariff bill of 1883 was never regularly considered by the House. 
It came in as a conference committee’s report on a bill to reduce the 
internal revenue. It differed from everything passed by either the 
House or Senate. It never could have passed the House on its merits. 
The rules of the House were amended, or, rather, trampled down. The 
mouths of members opposed to it were closed by cutting off debate; 
the constitutional right of the House to originate bills for raising rev¬ 
enue was tamely, cowardly surrendered to the Senate; the cause of 
iustice was powerless; the voice of Representatives chosen by the peo¬ 
ple to originate these bills was drowned out by the wild clamor for 
higher tariff; justice failed, and the bill passed. 

Sir, this is the system wbdch they tell us should not be disturbed by 
agitation. These were the means resorted to which we are called upon 
to justify by non-action. And this is the.prohibitory grinding law, 
from which they tell us we should hold our hands. For one, I will 
never, never do it till mine “forgets its cunning.” Members may cry 
for “ peace ’ ’ on this question, but there is no peace while such flagrant 
robbery goes on. If you want no agitation give us justice. If you 
“ do not want business interests disturbed,” strive with us to bottom 
the tariff on principles of “equal and exact justice to all men,” and 
then we will lock shields 'with you, and all rushtogether to the defense 
of any one of them that is ruthlessly assailed. 

But, Mr. Chairman, you will cry in vain to the sovereign citizen to 

“keep quiet” 

while you take his scanty earnings by any sort of legislative larceny. 
How can you expect him to ‘ ‘ keep quiet ’ ’ when he looks to the Treas¬ 
ury and beholds one hundred and filty millions of his money which you 
have wrongfully wrung from him by this law lying there idle and you 
refusing to relieve him? How can you expect him to make no com¬ 
plaint when he in full sight of these things feels your long, felonious 
fingers turning his depleted pockets inside out and seizing his last 
penny to swell the vicious surplus accumulation? To-day there are 
near three dollars surplus in the Treasury for every citizen of the 
United States, yet you refuse to reduce taxes. Money is flowing in 
at the rate of a million dollars a day, more than forty-one thousand dol¬ 
lars an hour; still you say there shall be no relief given. Refuse it if 
you will, but be prepared as a consequence to have an outraged people 
“shriek their horrid curses in your shrinking ears.” 

Mr. Chairman, no statesman has yet appeared rash enough to justify 
this vast surplus by public declaration. If any man has, it was some 
individual who neither believed what he said nor would so far violate 
his instincts as to say what he belived. I have already quoted to you 
the declarations of the Tariff Commission and of the Democratic platform 
at Saint Louis. The platform of the Cincinnati convention contained a 
declaration similar to that adopted at Saint Louis. Let us next examine 
the testimony of others on the subject of revising the tariff. In a speech 
made by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Ran¬ 
dall], in this Hall, May 8, 1882, he said: 

The existini? overflowing Treasury brings a demand for the reduction of the 
tariflf and internal-revenue taxes. In my opinion, in such a condition of our 


I 


6 


finances, reduction of taxation shall at once begin. Unnecessary taxation la 
injurious to the interests of the people in many directions. Government has no 
justification for the collection of burdensome taxes in excess of the sum requi¬ 
site for the support of its proper administration. 

Mr. Chairman, if there was “no justification for the collection of 
burdensome taxes in excess of the sum requisite for the support of the 
proper administration of Government,” then what excuse or justi¬ 
fication is there for it now? There has been no perceptible reduction 
of the tariff since these words were spoken. If a reduction of duties 
was demanded then—and I admit it—it is much more needed now. 
Then our bonded debt amounted to about a billion and a half. Since 
that we have paid off 20 per cent, of it, and our surplus has in¬ 
creased. If public policy, wise statesmanship, demanded a reduction 
then, how can we deny it now? The reduction proposed by the bill 
now under consideration added to the small reduction made by the last 
Congress would not exceed that recommended by the Tariff Commis¬ 
sion. 

THE president’s RECOMMENDATIONS. 

Sir, in his annual message sent to Congress by the President in De¬ 
cember, 1882, when the surplus in the Treasury was not greater than 
it is now, he said: 

You can not fail to note with interest the discussion by the Secretary as to the 
necessity of providing by legislation some mode of freeing the Treasury of an 
excess of assets in the event Congress fails to reach an early agreement for the 
reduction of taxation. 

I heartily approve the Secretary’s recommendation of immediate and exten¬ 
sive reductions in the annual revenues of the Government. 

It will be remembered that I ux’ged upon the attention of Congress at its last 
session the importance of relieving the industry and enterprise of the country 
from the pressure of unnecessary taxation. It is one of the tritest maxims of 
political economy that all taxes are burdensome, however wisely and prudently 
imposed. % * * Oflate the public revenues have far exceeded what was neces¬ 
sary for a wise and economical administration of the Government. 

THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY RECOMMENDS A REDUCTION. 

Mr. Chairman, in his annual report, made just before the assembling 
of this Congress ‘last December, the Secretary of the Treasury makes 
this strong statement: 

The chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance (in explanation of the bill 
that became a law) estimated at $15,000,000 the reduction of the revenue which 
would follow the changes in the tariff proposed thereby. These intentions and 
calculations have not been verified. * * * We have, then, a reduction of 
$30,000,000 less than was sought for and expected. * * * There ought to be 
a reduction of taxation. 

GENERAL, JACKSON ON EXCESSIVE TAXATION. 

Sir, we are sometimes told that General Jackson, one of the founders 
and expounders of Democracy, favored a ‘ ‘judicious tariff. ’’ Who does 
not want a judicious tariff to-day ? Our complaint against the present 
one is that it is not j udicious. We are willing and anxious to stand on 
the same principle he did. Concerning taxation he said: 

There is perhaps no one of the powers conferred on the General Govern¬ 
ment so liable to abuse as the taxing power. The productive and convenient 
sources of revenue were necessarily given to it that it might be able to perform 
the important duties imposed upon it; and the taxes which it lays upon commerce 
being concealed from the real payer in the price of the article, they do not so 
readily attract the attention of the people as smaller sums demanded from them 
directly by the tax-gatherer. But the tax imposed upon goods enhanced by so 
much the price of the commodity to the consumer. And as many of these duties 
are imposed on articles of necessity which are daily used by the great body of 
the people, the money raised by these imposts is drawn from their pockets. 

Congress has no right under the Constitution to take money from the people, 
unless it is required to execute some one of the specific powers intended to the 


7 


Government; and if they raise more than is necessary it is an abuse of the power 
of taxation, and unjust and oppressive. It may indeed happen that the revenue 
will sometimes exceed the amount anticipated when the taxes were laid; and in 
such a case it is unquestionably the duty of the Government to reduce them, for 
no circumstance can justify it in assuming a power not given to it by the Con- 
stitutionjor in taking away the money of the people when it is not needed for 
the legitimate wants of the Government. 

Upon this bold, ancient, and able enunciation of principles the De¬ 
mocracy stood then, and stands now. We ask nothing more and will 
take nothing less. 

IS THE REDUCTION HORIZONTAL? 

Mr. Chairman, some members have objected to the bill because they 
say it is a hqpizontal reduction. If it is merely a 20 per cent, hori¬ 
zontal reduction it presents to the legislator the alternative of having 
high duties or low, as he prefers, with the articles bearing the same 
relation to each other, whether high or low. He who wants lower 
duties will vote for the bill, while he who wants no reduction will vote 
against it of course. No man who voted for the present law can con¬ 
sistently object to this because the cut affects all in a horizontal way. 
But the reduction is not horizontal throughout. The bill discriminates 
by reducing the tariff on articles of necessity, now highly taxed, and 
leaving without reduction certain schedules of luxury which carry a 
low rate. 

Silk dress goods, shawls, shoes, ribbons, trimmings, buttons, in fine 
all silk goods, are left by the bill without reduction. But cotton and 
woolen goods are reduced. Jewels and many precious stones are not 
reduced because they are articles which may be dispensed with. But, 
as I have already stated, we do projiose by the bill to reduce the tax 
on tableware, glass, clothing, and the thousand other necessaries of 
life. There is no reduction on liquors and wines, but there is on medi¬ 
cine. Let him who wants to continue the present high rate on essentials 
and low rate on luxuries oppose this measure. But he who thinks there 
should be less duty on home comforts and higher on luxuries will not 
oppose it. 

But aside from all this we have had many instances of horizontal re¬ 
duction supported by Mr. Clay and others. The following from the able 
speech of Mr. Mills, of Texas, gives concisely the history of that kind 
of legislation: 

In 1833 the great compromise tariff introduced by Mr. Clay, the father of pro¬ 
tection in this country, was passed by Congress. Under that law there was a 
horizontal reduction or the tariff of 10 per ceat. in 1833, a horizontal reduction of 
10 per cent, in 1835, a horizontal reduction of 10 percent, in 1837, a horizontal re¬ 
duction of 10 per cent, in 1839, and in 1842 a horizontal tariff of 20 per cent, was 
reached by the sliding scale, and it was agreed that that should remain the law 
of the future, and that the bill should be regarded as a settlement of a long-vexed 
question—“a treaty of amity and peace,” as it was characterized by its distin¬ 
guished author. These are not all of the horizontal taxes we have had during 
our history. In 1865 there was a horizontal increase of 20 per cent, on the taxes 
levied on the schedules of domestic manufacture; and in 1866 there was a hori¬ 
zontal reduction of 20 per cent, on domestic manufactures. In 1872 there was a 
horizontal reduction of 10 per cent, on the schedule of imported goods, and in 
1875 there was a horizontal increase of 10 per cent, on imported goods. 

HOARDING MONEY IN THE TREASURY AND PAYING INTEREST. 

Sir, I am unable to see bow any Kepresentative can conclude the 
best interests of bis country require the raising of more revenue than 
is necessary to meet the various demands of Government economically 
administered. The individual who owed a heavy debt, had the money 
by him to pay a large amount of it, and yet hoarded his money, kept 
it out of his business and continued to pay interest on the debt he 


8 


could discharge any day, would be called financially a fool. Yet this 
is the very thing we are doing as a Government. We owe two hundred 
and fifty-four millions, now due and callable. We have a hundred 
and fifty millions surplus lying in the Treasury idle. Still we refuse 
to pay the money out, and force our constituents to pay interest. ^ 

To hoard that sum there year after year when it might be paid on 
bonds, stop interest, and go forth to enliven trade is a crime against 
the tax-payers. It is a crime for which the administration that is 
guilty of it should be held to a severe account. He who hoards it and 
still grinds his people with oppressive and unnecessary taxation is a 
political malefactor. Some opposing this bill have said that if we re¬ 
duce import duties it will increase thd revenue. The author of the 
bill claims it will reduce the revenues $30,000,000 a year. But if we 
can reduce the tax-payer’s burdens 20 per cent, and at the same time 
not diminish his ability to pay what he owes, who is foolhardy enough, 
unpatriotic enough to refuse to do it? 

If there be one such here I pause that he may rise and announce it. 
Let him proclaim his readiness to betray the trust committed to him. 
Through Congress alone, under the Constitution, can the people get 
relief from onerous taxation once fastened upon them by that body. 
Their condition is to be deplored when this, their last tribunal, refuses 
to heed them. When the time comes that Congress refuses to discharge 
this duty the people will discharge Congress and send here those who 
are not afraid to act. 

AN OVERFLOWING TREASURY LEADS TO PANICS, EXTRAVAGANCE, AND CORRUP¬ 
TION. 

But aside from all considerations of mere policy for the reduction of 
taxes there is an imperative necessity for it growing out of the pay¬ 
ment of our public debt. We have to-day a surplus of about one hun¬ 
dred and fifty millions in the Treasury. The Secretary estimates the 
surplus for the ensuing year at eighty millions. We have outstanding 
$254,000,000 of bonds subject to call and payment before 1891. Using 
the surplus in the Treasury and coming in, we can pay all of this by 
the close of 1885. If the ‘ ‘ do-nothing policy ’ ’ is adopted, the tariff 
untouched, and the taxes left standing, money will continue to flow into 
the Treasury at the rate of one hundred millions surplus a year from 
1886 to 1891. 

There being then no bonds due, this means of sending it back into cir¬ 
culation can not be resorted to, and it will be withheld from circulation^ 
and locked in the Treasury. If is safe to calculate that there would be in 
the Treasury January, 1891, five hundred millions, or $9 for every man, 
woman, and child in the Government. It requires no power of proph¬ 
ecy to foretell the result. An overflowing Treasury leads to prodigal 
appropriations. The lobby lingers longingly around it as vultures around 
the carcass. Thieves congregate and devise every means, from larceny 
to legislative robbery, to get their hands into it. Besides, so much 
money would thereby be diverted from the legitimate channels of trade 
that stringency, panics, and ruin would inevitably follow. 

This must be averted, and it can only be done by reducing taxes. 
Messrs. Blaine, Logan, and others, say, ‘ ‘ Let the system run on and dis¬ 
tribute the surplus among the States.” In other words, they propose, 
after degrading the States in many other ways, to take from them the ’ 
power or necessity for raising revenue to carry on the State governments, 
and do this by deputy marshals and customs officers. Congress is to 
dole out revenue to the States! Every patriot in the land should cry 


9 


out against such a suicidal, centralizing policy as this, if permanently 
established, would be. We should flee from it as we would the pesti¬ 
lence. 

STRIKING OUT THE ENACTING CLAUSE. 

We are told, sir, that a motion to strike out the enacting clause of 
the bill is to be made as soon as general debate closes next Tuesday and 
before there is any chance to amend it. The enemies of tariff reform 
boast that they can carry that motion. ITe who votes to kill the bill 
in that way thereby says he wants no change. He will proclaim that 
he wants to continue the high duty on salt, mechanics’ tools, farming 
implements, and the thousand things the laborer must have to live. 
He will thus say he wants high war tariffs retained on the men of to¬ 
day who were infants at the close of the war. 

I see sitting around me members who voted last session for the pres¬ 
ent iniquitous law. They took the tax off of patent medicines, but refuse 
now to take it from salt. They voted then for free bologna sausage, and 
decline to vote to reduce the tariff on sugar. They reduced it on silk, 
and refuse to reduce it on calico and domestic. They voted to give us 
velvet at 30 per cent., and now refuse to let us have cotton goods re¬ 
duced to 60 per cent. They voted t(^et in jewelry at from 10 to 30 per 
cent., and refuse to let us reduce mecnanics’ too4s to 50 per cent. They 
reduced the taxes on banks many millions, and to-day stand stubborn 
as the dog in the manger and refuse to vote for reduction of the high 
duty on hats, blankets, and jeans. They freed hair oil and “rough on 
rats ” from all internal taxes, and refuse to reduce the high tariff on the 
linen and flannel worn by children. Love of literature does not lure 
them from their pet theory, for they vote against reducing the tax on 
literary productions. The fear of Heaven seems powerless to move 
them, for when they oppose this bill they oppose a proposition to reduce 
the tax on the Word of God. 

Mr. Chairman, there is no excuse for such a vote. I would say to 
the onemies of the bill, “ If it does not suit you, and you have power 
to strike out the enacting clause, you have power to amend it. Why 
do not you amend it till it does suit you ? ’ ’ No, sir ; they do not want 
to amend it. They want to kill all tariff legislation, and all their ener¬ 
gies are turned in that direction. If they succeed it will be at a sacri¬ 
fice of their country’s best interest. But I warn them that the fruits 
of their victory, like “Dead Sea fruits, will turn to anshes on the lips.” 
They mdy impede but can not stop this great movement. Before they 
get through this business they will learn that while they may destroy 
themselves they can not destroy the spirit of tax reform. “Justice 
travels with a leaden heel, but strikes with an iron hand. ’ ’ This is no 
spasmodic effort. It is one engaging the thoughts and enlisting the 
energies of millions of people. Those who labor to live think their 
labor should be less taxed, and will never stop till it is done. They 
have seen 

CONGRESS REPEAL THE INCOME TAX, 

thereby taking more than sixty millions annually off of the rich. 
Tliey have seen the tax on manufactured tobacco and on the privilege of 
dealing in it and whisky reduced about two-thirds. They have seen 
the banks freed from their taxes. After seeing Congress in various ways 
reduce the taxes on these things about three hundred millions a year, 
they come forward and implore you to take just 20 per cent, off of their 
coats, hats, shirts, blankets, farming utensils, sugar, rice, table-ware, 
and medicine. Will you do it ? Or will you .say to them, “Go, hence; 


\ 


10 


yon deserve no relief, and we will give you none.” Are yon ready to 
say to them, “ We rushed to the rescue of the rich by repealing the in¬ 
come tax while the smoke of battle still hung around the hills, but we 
will do nothing for you even after half of the war debt is paid.” 

Will you who oppose this bill by refusing relief still further confirm 
the laborers of the land in the belief that for the advancement of their 
best interests no Congress ever assembles? If so, do it quickly. Doit 
by striking out the enacting clause and refusing even to amend, if you 
will; but when you do it, prepare to take the consequences. Prepare 
to meet the wrath of those you wrong. There is yet a voice loud enough 
to make itself heard. There is yet a hand strong enough to make itself 
felt. That voice is the complaining voice of an overtaxed people. 
That hand is their hand raised to strike down any man or party of men 
standing in the way of their relief. 

nE?r THE REDUCTION BE JUDICIOUS AND GRADUAL. 

Mr. Chairman, I do not favor so sudden a revolution in the tariff as 
to produce disaster. In a speech I made on this subject in the last 
Congress, I said: 

The raising of revenue ought to the primary object, but in the raising of 
revenue we can so adjust the tariff tlmt our home industries will receive all the 
protection they need, and all that the equitably disposed could wish. We have 
to pay interest on $1,^4,752,700. Besides this we have to pay a large amount for 
pensions annually and pay the current expenses of the Government. We col¬ 
lect about a million dollars a day ; more than $600 a minute. I insist that there 
is no need of further proteetion to industries than is afforded by a judicious 
tariff sufficient to raise this revenue. We have gone on under our present sys¬ 
tem until it may be wise to adopt the eourse of a graduated tariff as did the Dem¬ 
ocrat! e party in 1846, thereby arriving at the revenue basis ultimately to be 
reached by such gradual steps as will not imperil establishments which have 
been forced into existenee by the abnormal tariff under whieh we have w'orked 
for the last twenty years. We ought to go about the work judiciously but reso¬ 
lutely. 

I have ii« cause to change my views as thus expressed, after two more 
years of refiection on the subject, and I insist that it is in accord vnth 
the sound Democracy. 

DEMOCRATIC PLATFORMS ON THE TARIFF. 

Sir, for more than a quarter of a century after the adoption of the 
Constitution—^till 1838—there were no conventions, as we now hold 
them, for the purpose of selecting candidates for President and Vice- 
President. That work was done by party Congressional caucuses. But 
those caucuses sometimes announced the principles upon which they 
asked the voters’ support for the candidate commended. The follow¬ 
ing is from the caucus declarations when Mr. Jefferson was first elected 
President: 

6. Free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little 
or no diplomatic establishments. 

The first platform adopted by a convention other than the caucus 
was that of 1838, and contained this clause: 

Hostility to any and all monopolies by legislation, because they are violations 
of the equal rights of the people. 

The true foundation of republican government is the equal rights of every 
citizen in his person and property and its management. 

The Democratic platforms of 1840 and 1844 promulgated the follow¬ 
ing principles: 

4. Resolved, That justice and sound policy forbid the Federal Government to 
foster one branch of industry to the detriment of another, or to cherish the in¬ 
terests of one portion to the injury of another portion of our common country. 

5. Resolved, That it is the duty of every branch of the Government to enforce 


/ 


11 


and practice the most rigid economy in conducting our public affairs, and that 
no more revenue ought to be raised than is required to defray the necessary 
expenses of the Government. 

The platform of 1848 on this subject was as follows: 

Resolved, That the fruits of the great political triumph of1844 have fulfilled the 
hopes of the Democracy of the Union in the noble impulse given to the cause of 
free trade by the repeal of the tariff of 1842 and the creation of the more equal, 
honest, and protective tariff of 1846, and that in our opinion it would be a fatal 
error to weaken the bands of a political organization by which these great re¬ 
forms have been achieved and risk them in the hands of their known adversa¬ 
ries, with whatever delusive appeals they may solicit our surrender of that vig¬ 
ilance which is the only safeguard of liberty. 

The Democratic convention of 1852 adopted this: 

Resolved, That it is the duty of every branch of the Government to enforce 
and practice the most rigid economy in conducting our public affairs, and that 
no more revenue ought to be raised than is required to defray the necessary ex¬ 
penses of the Government and for the gradual but certain extinction of the pub¬ 
lic debt. 

Resolved, And to sustain and advance among them constitutional liberty by 
continuing to resist all monopolies and exclusive legislation for the benefit of 
the few at the expense of the many. 

The Democratic convention of 1856, that nominated Mr. Buchanan, 
adopted the following as a part of its platform: 

Resolved, That justice and sound policy forbid the Federal Government to 
foster one branch of industry to the detriment of another, or to cherish the in¬ 
terests of one portion of our common country. 

Resolved finally. The time has come for the people of the United States to de¬ 
clare themselves in favor of free seas and progressive free trade throughout the 
world. 

And this was reaffirmed by both the Douglas and Breckinridge wings 
of the Democratic party after the unfortunate split of 1860. 

In 1872 there was a split in the Kepublican party, and Mr. Greeley 
was nominated by the Liberals. The Democrats indorsed his nomi¬ 
nation, and thereby accepted his platform, which contained this clause: 

We remit the discussion of the subject (protection and free trade) to the peo¬ 
ple in their Congressional districts and the decision of Congress thereon, wholly 
free from executive interference or dictation. 

And this is the only instance in which a national Democratic con¬ 
vention has ever evaded coming squarely to the issue of tariff for reve¬ 
nue. 

PAYMENT OF THE DEBT. 

Sir, I regret that unwise legislation has placed more than seven hun¬ 
dred millions of our bonds in such a condition that they can not be paid 
off till 1907. Here the people have to pay 4 and 4^ per cent, interest 
on this for nearly a quarter of a century, when they can get all the 
money wanted at 3 per cent., and could pay them in ten years. For 
more than twenty years bad government must go on by allowing the 
owners of these bonds to draw high interest on this vast sum, while 
it is freed from all taxation, national. State, and municipal. There 
should be no favoritism in our Government. Each citizen should pay 
taxes in proportion to his ability, in proportion to the property he pos¬ 
sesses and the blessings derived from the Government. 

Nothing will more surely and rapidly destroy our Government than 
the fostering of favored classes by legislation. Nothing will so quickly 
breed discontent and riots as the enactment and continuance of laws 
so unequal in their operations that the poor are taxed heavily while 
the millions of bonds owned by those possessing great wealth go free 
from all taxes. I know there are those who do not want to payoff this 
debt. Those who hold it know they have a mortgage on the muscle 


12 


of every laborer till the last cent is paid with interest. They know 
they will probably never get another chance to make so safe an invest¬ 
ment where they will be free from taxation, hence they raise the cry 
that the debt is being paid too rapidly. Away with the doctrine that 
“a national debt is a national blessing! ” It should never be assented 
to by any patriot. 

Sir, the protectionist also urges non-payment of the debt. He knows 
that while the debt lasts and interest is to be paid he has an excuse for 
high tariffs which will be gone when the debt is extinguished. Hence, 
“interest on the debt must be paid” is “rolled under his tongue as a 
sweet morsel. ” It enables him to continue to clamor against reduc¬ 
tion of war-tariff taxes. 

MANUFACTURING IN THE SOUTH. 

The advocates of high tariff for the sake of protection tell us that 
we of the Soutli should favor the present duties to develop our country. 
Kingdoms are promised us if we “will fall down and worship” them. 
My candid opinion is that nothing stands more in the way of Southern 
development than the present high tariff and the increased cost of ma¬ 
chinery and establishments for manufacturing which it causes. Cotton 
manufacturing in the South pays 20 per cent, according to the statis¬ 
tics of 1880. So favorably is the South situated for manufacturing that 
cotton has been picked there and the suit of clothes it made worn the 
same day. There are iron-furnaces there at which the owner can stand 
and see the point from which the coal, ore, and limestone are all taken 
out of which his iron is made. I predict the time will come when Ten¬ 
nessee and Alabama stoves and castings can be sold at a profit in Pitts¬ 
burgh, and their domestic sold in Lowell. The president of the Phoenix 
Mills in Georgia has written to members of this House advocating re¬ 
duction of the tariff, and demonstrating that Southern mills do not 
need it. 

AGRICULTURE. 

Sir, we are more dependent upon our farmers than upon any other 
class for our prosperity. When enacting laws to protect why not strive 
to benefit them? They are more numerous than all other classes, and 
their prosperity more important. Yet what do you propose to do for 
them, except fleece them? What protection is afforded the farmer? 
His surplus cotton, tobacco, and wheat are all sold in the East in compe¬ 
tition with pauper labor. What benefit does he derive from your alleged 
laws against pauper labor competition? None. 

^ ^ut you tax him sleeping and tax him waking; tax him in prosper- 
\ ity and tax him in adversity; tax him living, and even after death his , 
V grave-clothes are heavily taxed. 

Sir, not only is this so, but your exclusive laws are rapidly driving 
from him those who have been accustomed to buy his products. 

Three years ago, when England saw the market for the sale of her 
goods was restricted in the United States, she began to cast around to 
devise means of getting her wheat elsewhere. She sent seed-wheat 
into India to try the experiment of raising it there. The success was 
marvelous. This year more than 40,000,000 bushels of her supply 
came from there. So severe a competition came that wheat has gone 
down till it is ]ower than it has been for twenty-five years. Laborers are 
employed there at 6 cents a day. Russia is also one of our chief com¬ 
petitors in the wheat market. Similar comparisons might be made 
wi th regard to tobacco and cotton. And you tax these farmers on every- 


13 


\ 


thing to maintain those engaged in other pursuits. A law which taxes 
one laborer for the benefit of another who is not taxed is not just and 
will not endure. 

Relative to the reduction of the tariff under Democratic administra¬ 
tion prior to the war, Hon. Robert J. Walker, ex-Secretary of the Treas¬ 
ury, said: 

From 1850 to 1860 our agricultiu'al products increased 95 per cent, and our man- 
ufaetiires 87 per cent., being in both cases nearly double any preceding ratio of 
increase. 

Commenting on this period, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mills] 
of the Ways and Means Committee, truly says: — 

On the 30th day of July the Walker tariff was enacted, to go into effect the 1st 
day of December, 1846. How was our foreign trade affected by the low revenue 
tariff? It increased so much that from the 1st of December, 1846, to 1st of De¬ 
cember, 1847, the revenue had increased eight and one-half millions, notwith¬ 
standing the very great reduction of duties. How did this affect agricultural 
products ? Just as a revenue tariff always does when it opens a way for them to 
market. Agricultural products rose from July 30,1846, to December 1,1846,231- 
percent, on an average; cotton rose 18.3 per cent.; wheat, 17,3; rye, 18; corn, 
24.5; oats, 40.3; barley, 24.7. 

Seven of the principal crops as shown by the Secretary of the Treasury in his 
report of that year had increased in value during the six months succeeding the 
passage of that bill more than $115,000,000, and it was estimated that the increased 
value of the whole crop for the same period was three hundred and fifty mill¬ 
ions. This additional value was given to the agricultural products of the coun¬ 
try beause the tariff of 1846 opened a way for them to market. But that is not 
all of its benefits to the farmers. It decreased the prices of manufactured prod- 
uets correspondingly. It added three hundred and fifty millions to his crops, 
but it added three hundred and fifty millions to the purchasing power of his 
money. 

INTERNAL REVENUE. 

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kelley] urges 
the repeal of the internal-revenue laws to reduce taxes. He was chair¬ 
man of the Ways and Means Committee last Congress; if sincere in 
this profession, why did he not do it then ? Why, when he had the power, 
did he not come forward with a bill and abolish it? No, sir; his party 
is willing enough to reduce the internal revenue to give cause for higher 
tariff, but they do not want to get rid of the system which gives them 
so many offices. They reduced the internal revenue by many (forty) 
millions last Congress, but did not abolish a single office. 

All the old machinery was kept. What the people want is to have 
the mode of collection so simplified as to get rid of the wrong and op¬ 
pression which now characterize it. Failing in that they will strike 
at the whole system. They are willing for whisky to pay its part of 
the great debt hanging over us if you will change the mode of collec¬ 
tion so it will not grind the citizen down and drag him from home as 
it does now. They will not be satisfied with a mere reduction of the 
tax on spirits distilled from grain while all of the old machinery is 
kept grinding away on the citizen. It is not so much the amount of 
the tax on whisky as it is the method of enforcing internal-revenue 
laws to which they object. I made an argument before the Ways and 
Means Committee, showing the hardships of the present system and 
urging that we be relieved of them. I think we will get some relief. 

I suppose I do not violate the proprieties of that proceeding when I 
say that we were told by the committee that it would be impossible to 
abolish the internal-revenue tax altogether; that to do so would leave a 
deficiency of about $40,000,000 a year. But we are promised an aboli¬ 
tion of the tobacco taxes, &c., and a simpler method of collection. A 
bill I introduced to reduce the time within which parties can be in- 


14 


dieted in the Federal courts from five to two years and less has already 
passed the House, and I hope will pass the Senate before we adjourn. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kelley] a few days ago 
undertook to draw a blood-curdling picture of the misery he saw abroad. 
He certainly can not claim that the high protective tariff has removed 
all want in this country. I will here read a gloomy picture he drew 
of the privations of his own people nearly twenty years after this high 
protective feature was adopt^ in what was known as the Morrill tariff. 
He said: 

Why, sir, the people of my city, the working people, whose pride it has been 
to have their families live under tneir own roof, are many of them huddling to¬ 
gether, three or four families in one such house, and then are probably unable 
to pay their rent. 

Let US see what sort of consistency characterizes the clamorers for 
higher tariff. They say it is for the benefit of American labor. Yet 
many of the owners of mills and factories import pauper laborers from 
Europe to work in their factories at lower wages than Americans are 
willing to work for. The contracts are made in the East before they 
are transported here. Again, if protection is for the benefit of the 
laborer, why were his wages reduced 10 per cent, last summer when 
the tariff had been reduced less than 2 per cent.? If the laborer is so 
loved by them, why is he turned off and the mill shut down when he 
strikes for higher wages ? 


SHOULD THE QUESTION BE REMOVED FROM POLITICS? 


Sir, we are told by high protectionists that this should not be made 
a political question. That it should be taken from the arena of poli¬ 
tics. The question is where the Constitution placed it. Congress fixes 
the amount and method of raising the taxes, and the people make and 
unmake the Congressmen. For one, I am glad the people have the 
constitutional right and power to thrustfromauthority those who over¬ 
burden them, and thereby betray their trusts, and I hope they will al¬ 
ways exercise it. Congress has power over the taxes, and, thanks to 
our wise fathers, the people have power over Congress. 



AMERICAN SHIPPING DESTROYED BY THE PRESENT SYSTEM. 


There was a time when our commerce was carried in American ships, 
manned by American seamen—American freemen. There was a time 
when the American flag floated over American cargoes, and when its 
bright, beautiful stars and emblematic stripes enlivened every sea and 
port where commerce was known. The American, looking out pn the 
broad ocean, beheld it in the Orient and in the Occident. Whither he 
went— 


To the northern wastes of snow. 

Or strayed where the soft magnolias blow— 


it was there; there to remind him of his own native land, whose sons 


resembled in their strength the gnarled oak of her deepest forests and 
whose daughters rivaled in their beauty and loveliness the orange-blos¬ 
soms of her most fragrant groves. 

-^T^ut how is it to-day ? Alas, the blighting hand of legislative restric¬ 
tion and oppression fell upon our marine service and it withered. Ma¬ 
terials entering into the manufacture of the ship were highly taxed 
under our prohibitory tariff. Under pretext of protecting American 
>building our people were prevented from using foreign-built ships 
ept on ruinous terrris. They could not buy those made at home 
of highly-taxed material at a cost that would enable them to com- 




15 


pete in the carrying trade with those built abroad. So we have had to 
give up the seas. 

Ships, sailorless, lay rotting on the sea, 

And their masts fell down piecemeal, and as they dropped 
They slipped on the abyss without a surge. 

The seas are no longer white with our sails and the American flag 
no longer waves over the deep. English ships bring their iron to us and 
carry our wheat, corn, cotton, and tobacco from us. Our laws are 
wrong—“there is something rotten in the state of Denmark,” or this 
^jdd not be. It was never so under Democratic dominion. 

In 1855 we built in this country four hundred vessels for the foreign 
I carrying trade. In 1879, with a population almost doubled, we built 
I but thirty-five. At that time Great Britain had 950,000 tons engaged 

I in trade between that country and this. Now she has but little less 
I than 6,000 tons. And last year we paid $120,000,000 in freights to for- 
eigners. With a less population we had seven times more tons engaged 
S, ^i n the foreign carrying trade than now. 

OUR FRKE INSTITUTIONS. 

Mr. Chairman, I have been both surprised and pained by the tenor of 
speeches made on the other side. The general prosperity of the coun¬ 
try and its marvelous development are pointed toby protectionists and 
claimed to bo wholly the fruits of their system. They, sir, are the 
finits of our free institutions generally, rather than of any particular 
law. They come from our freedom of the press, freedom of speech, 
freedom of religion, freedom from arrest except by legal process, our 
trial by jury, and general dissemination of knowledge among the masses. 
These have made us great, and would have made us so under either 
high or low tariff. Ours is the most desirable of all countries, whether 
the one or the other theory of the tariff is adopted. No man contem¬ 
plates with more patriotic pride its present and prospective grandeur 
than I do. Well might the eloquent Phillips exclaim: “Happy, free 
America, the lightnings of heaven yielded to your philosophy; the 
temptations of earth could not seduce your patriotism.” May “He 
who doeth all things well ’ ’ so guide our glorious land that it shall for 
ages continue as now—the wonder of the world, and a blessing toman- 
kind. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 


O 







^ 

i , ... 




'mm 

' ''’’■ ' '* ; '•, ' •- " 

* - « ^ ' ' 


f''m 





'•i , WTVl 


:?’ 






’ 1 


\ • 


. > 


• . *< 


, -» 

t 


Y 

<■ 


^ # »• ' • 

- ■■■ ■■ ^ V ■ 

•■ ^'riL^'.VAV. 

•Oi ij. .j I y‘., ;”■; ^■ 

' . ■' ip..; ' ^ !• ■.!.■'. 


t • 


-o 


4i 


j ■, ' * ' S "I*- 

. ■ « 


•;:.:.fvv 

T 

v*7 






*■ 


s 

v*S.*4 


■ ^ i ' * 


I 


. . ,1 

i V' '* 

. ■ f 



/ 


^■' *? - -. • ■ 


■;■■'■■ •■ ^5K4i:; 

' ' i’ '■ '*■;-(• ■' /'ii/?';-'*;." * •-■*' 

• . .,. '■■ .-... ^ ■ . . . 




.r-y. 



\ I / 

! . 


>■ 


' V 


I 

. f S' 


: •, 


4 

.''itii.i 

it: 4 ■’ 

’ xM*' 


I f 


i» . > 


.,i r > su I 

■ .. 


•/. H i 


•Ml' ' 




“v# 


''•) ‘•*.*i ‘ '' 

r% , /■' 


\. 


, ( 

'V ' 


-r j* 


I . '.■ 


<T‘ 


f;/'* 




’’ V -1'/-^!»■ ■•• ■ '■ ' - 

..' ■...'V '■ ':' -> .j.; ' ■ iv • > ‘I*, 

:.l i ^'■^ t..-/ . ' . . r •«■ • .. 

X ,.•»;.! :;f-., ..-. ■' 

. . ■ '>*.■•' ''' '■' i ; ) ■ X X ' 

(t.^ X"'‘ )X‘'.''' ' *■' ' ■ ' 

'• i.' • \ ‘ ' 

'' . 'I* • . • ^■ 




V 


r . i 


, t. *« 


. i 

jJ 


■l;./ 

N 


V'^ 

• ■ . • ’ . » • - . VteN 

f!' •’■ . ■. 






' - vt"/'". ■ . X' ■• .'X.TPV ■ ;i'-' .'V'' •.•'■'ll.';-' v"''i ■' 

; *• ■ '^V. '*'*■' •'* ^*' ■•’'■■■ ' - *• ' ^ |9 

vri- xX ;-V'. ,-..'X.•: •' ''.jrhn -., ■ <''> 


■’U 

■vri 

\ 



/ * ■ 4 

' ‘ >- 



...p-i" 

iii 


»: ,/p 




il 


. i> 

*» f 




11. 

% 




^A- . 

J * 'j.'/*' 


‘ »? 

»• 




' ,x: l.•^ 


. > 



/:>■ ’-X: 



. . . r 

1 . \ ' 

1 ■ •.'.r L 

! ■ - ■ < X ii*, 

y. 


' • * ■ 1 ’ 

Sr- r 

.■ i ' 

' ^ * 1 

. f 








•’ ..'. * . rl'.A-p 




'V 


# ^ 


'W 





N 

/ 


/ 


U- • - 
' *« * * ■ 


I « 


-i -■ 




<*• 

4 


I p- 


'J.-:' 






I • . 


m 


'• *»' 




.X, X '^ 

■.., ta-v'. - 




*■'•••.• • s 

• k* • -1 

• . . •. / / •! iJ" ; 

• 4 


V-fi 



Additional Bank Circulation. 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON. .1. li. McPherson, 

OF NEW J E R S E Y . 

In the Senate of the United States, 

Wednesday, February Ki, 1884, 


The Senate as in Committee of tlie Whole, having under consideration tlie 
bill (S. 1155) to provide for the issue of circulating notes to national banking 
associat ions— 

Mr. MCPHERSON said: 

Mr. President: As the amendment of the Senator from Ohio is 
before the Senate the few words I have to say on this measure I will 
say now. 

There are five different propositions now before the Senate, as I under¬ 
stand the state of the case, the one I had the honor to introduce, the one 
proposed by the honorable Senator from Kansas [Mr. Plumb] which I do 
not know whether he intends seriously to press or not; the proposition 
made by the honorable Senator from Ohio [Mr. Sherman] originally 
which proposed to issue currency upon what is practically the market 
value of the bonds; but he now seems to be frightened at the magnitude 
of the shadow which that singular financial steeple casts and has offered 
one to-day which goes in the wrong direction to just half the distance 
traveled by the original one. If he will only take one more such jump 
he will land in our camp, There is also one proposed by the honora¬ 
ble Senator from Vermont [Mr. Morrill]. My objections to all of 
the propositions offered by the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from 
Vermont are that thej’^are based upon unsafe ground. They are wrong 
in principle. They all propose to issue circulation on the speculative 
value of the bond, and to this I am opposed. 

I am too conservative in my financial views to refuse my support to 
any suitable measure of relief which will afford the people of the coun¬ 
try all the currency needed to safely and successfully transact their 
business enterprises, without which the financial equilibrium will be 
liable to disturbance, and distress to every industry' the inevitable con¬ 
sequence. I favor the continuance of the present national banking sys¬ 
tem until some suitable substitute equal to all the mutations of business, 
confidence, and credit shall be first found to take its place, because 
it is the best possible currency attainable at this time—in fact, the most 





I 


2 

absolutely secure form of paper currency that has ever existed in any 
time or country; for since the organization of the national hanks not a 
dollar of their circulation has ever been discredited and lost. Behind 
the circulation and resting upon them stand the Government bonds, 
and no security can be better than this, for the property of all the people 
is pledged to the strict payment of the bonds. This currency passes 
current at its face value in all the States and Territories of the Union and 
in many of the South American states. Having no legal-tender qualit}'" 
for the payment of debts, yet its debt-paying power is recognized and 
respected by our people in almost every business transaction. 

The history of many of the early banking systems of the country has 
deepened the prejudice against bank notes which ask a credit of the 
holder. 

Compare the existing national banking system, if you please, mth 
the condition of things which existed prior to its adoption, and the con¬ 
trast will furnish an abundant reason for its continuance. It is within 
the recollection of every Senator here that for every day’s travel from 
the Mississippi River eastward the noteholder of the Western State 
bank was forced to submit to a loss of from 1 to 3 per cent, on its face 
value, and when he reached New York, the great financial and com¬ 
mercial center, 10 per cent, was not an unusual discount. Under the 
old State-bank regime it was often impossible to judge safely of the ad¬ 
equacy of the security behind the bank bill, and under the laws of 
some of the States no security whatever was required as a safeguard 
to the noteholder. It is not surprising, therefore, that the value of a 
bank note was measured largely by the distance it had wandered from 
the place of promised redemption. In the light which such an expe¬ 
rience gives, it is needless to say that the financial affairs of this coun¬ 
try can never again be based upon such a system, or upon any system 
which affords less protection than absolute security to the noteholder. 

The public mind has been so long accustomed to associate the idea 
of a safe representative currency with the deposit of a pledge for its re¬ 
demption that a proposition to base such an issue upon any other form 
of security is regarded as an innovation fraught with the utmost dan¬ 
ger. The national banking act was passed at a time when the Gov¬ 
ernment was in great need of money, and had for its object not so 
much the supplying of a circulating medium as the creation of a mar¬ 
ket for the Government bonds among the people. The Government is 
no longer a borrower, and our action now may be taken without regard 
to the Government credit. Therefore, owing to the success attendant 
upon the national bank system, and the satisfactory results, after along 
trial, it has achieved, the question of its continuance to a period at least 
coequal with the existence of the bonds seems to be a well-settled con¬ 
viction both with Congress and the people. Conceding this, we are 
called upon to legislate only in respect of the details, to make such leg¬ 
islation as will tend to hold the volume of currency stable and at the 
same time equal to all emergencies; to prevent undue expansion or 
contraction of the currency, either of which tend to disturb the finan¬ 
cial equilibrium, and both alike in effect, if not in degree, hurtful to 
our business prosperity. 

It may inquiringly Pe asked, with thirteen hundred millions of bonds 
of various issues available to protect circulation—an authorized issue 
of circulation of only five hundred millions—and only three hundred 
and forty-six millions of the authorized issue of circulation actually in 
use, why is any relief needed ? 


The answer is found in the fact that the 3 per cent, bonds are sub¬ 
ject to call and cancellation by the Government as fast as the surplus 
revenue applicable alone to such purpose accrues. Considering that 
fifty million 3 per cent, bonds have been called and canceled by the 
Government within a few months the conclusion is irresistible that 
contraction is steadily going on, and it becomes imperative to seek some 
remedy that will arrest its progress. 

To efiect this end several bills embodying the views of their respect¬ 
ive authors and differing widely in the general plan have been presented 
in the Senate, and each has received due consideration from the Finance 
Committee. The bill I had the honor to introduce received the assent 
of the committee, has been favorably reported here, and upon that re¬ 
port we ask the concurrence of the Senate. 

The bill reads as follows: 

BeAl enacted, <fcc., That upon adepositof any United States bonds bearing inter¬ 
est, in the manner required by law, any national banking association making the 
same shall be entitled to receive from the Comptroller of the Currency circulat¬ 
ing notes of different denominations, in blank, registered and countersigned as 
provided by law, not exceeding in amount the par value of the bonds deposited: 
Provided, Thatatno time shall the total amountof such notes issued to anysuch 
association exceed the amount at such time actually paid in of its capital stock. 
And that all laws and parts of laws inconsistent with the provisions of this act 
be, and the same are hereby, repealed. 

It will readily be seen that this bill provides for the increase of cir¬ 
culation from .90 jier cent, of the par value of all the classes of bonds, 
as under existing law, to the full par value of the bond, and to the par 
value only. It limits the circulation based upon the bond to exactly 
what the Government have promised to pay for it, no more, no less. 
Under this bill the basis upon which the circulation rests is neither 
fictitious, speculative, nor fluctuating, but one depending solely upon the 
ability of the Government to pay the bonds. 

But it is urged by those who favor issuing circulation upon the mar¬ 
ket value of the bond that the 3 percents will soon be all paid and can¬ 
celed, and an adequate inducement should be offered to impel the banks 
to secure circulation by a deposit of 4 or percents which have a fixed 
date of payment, and which by reason of this and of the higher rate of 
interest they bear command a premium in the market. 

Our answer is that the existence of the 3 percent, bonds, now largely 
held as a security for bank circulation, depends, upon the surplus above 
current needs in the Treasury, and the amount of surplus will depend 
upon the action of Congress touching the reserve. The demand of the 
people, without regard to party lines, has been in favor of reduction of 
the burdens of taxation, and I have no doubt Congress will heed the de¬ 
mand, and possibly leave us with little or no surplus. Therefore, 
while the Government retains the option to pay the 3 per cent, bonds 
at will, the ability to do so rests entirely upon the action of Congress, 
and in the mamier I have indicated. 

We answer further, that in the event of the possible payment of 
the 3 per cent, bonds within the next three years, and which can only 
be done by continuing taxation at the present excessive rate, the in¬ 
creased circulation of 10 per cent, for which this bill provides will 
offer all the advantage required, and all that can safely be given, to 
induce the banks to deposit 4 and 4.] per cent, bonds as a security for 
circulation in lieu of the called and canceled 3 percents. That banking 
can be profitably done under this bill at the present market value of 
the bonds bearing 4 and 4| per cent, interest, or even at a much higher 


4 


pi'emium, is capable of mathematical demonstration. To illustrate: Tlie 
interest-bearing debt of the United States now outstanding, and upon 
which circulation is now authorized to be issued ujwn the deposit of 
the bonds, is as follows. 


Four-and-a-half percents, due Septeml^er 1, 1891-$250, 000, 000 

Four percents, due July 1, 1907- 737, 641, 050 

Three i>ercents, subject to call and payment by the Gov¬ 
ernment_ 274, 708, 850 

Six percents, currency, due from 1895 to 1899- 64, 000, 000 

Of these bonds the l)anks now hold as follows: 

Four-aiid-a-half percents- $41, 000, 000 

Four percents_ 106, 000, 000 

Three percents_ 201, 000, 000 

Six percents, currency- 3, 000, 000 


It will be seen from this statement that only two hundred millions of 
the circulation now outstanding is secured by pledges of the 3 per cent, 
bonds—the balance, or one hundred and fifty millions, being secured by 
the higher-rate or premium bonds—and w ere mainly deposited at a 
time when the banks enjoyed the option and could instead have de¬ 
posited the cheaper bond and received in return for it an equal amount 
of circulation. Therefore with this experience it will not do to .say 
that the premium above the par value exacted in the market for the 
fixed-date bonds will prevent, to any appreciable extent, their use as a 
basis for securing circulation. All experience teaches that the market- 
value of a bond or other security depends only upon w hat it will yield 
to the investor, keeping in view always the degree of certainty which 
attaches to its ultimate payment. 

When w'e reflect that one thousand millions of the 4 and 42 percents 
are now in existence, and must remain so for many j^ears to come, to 
which we may add the hundreds of millions of State, railroad, munic¬ 
ipal, and other securities now' on the market, and to which class of se¬ 
curities additions are being daily made, and many of them as safe an 
investment as the bonds of the Government and yield more to the in¬ 
vestor—considering all this, I may at least be pardoned for not sympa¬ 
thizing with the fear so often expressed that the market price of a 4 per 
cent. Government bond carrying w ith it, as under this bill, the right to 
call for circulation equal to its par value would prelude their deposit 
by the banks. For if the tax on circulation be removed—and w ho can 
doubt that it wall be—the banks will have the advantage of any outside 
competitor equal to what the circulation they receive will yield. Be¬ 
fore closing I will present a table showing as near as possible the value 
of this advantage. 

It w ill further be seen from the statement I have already given that 
while the authorized national-bank circulation under existing law’^ is 
much in excess of that actually taken by the banks, the three hundred 
and fifty millions now’ employed is quite enough for pre.sent needs, and 
to which this bill proposes to add 10 per cent., or thirty-five millions 
more, without requiring the deposit of a single additional bond. We 
have yet made no mention of the two hundred million coin certificates, 
and they are constantly increasing in a ratio which seems to forbid con¬ 
traction of the currency from the cause mentioned to any degree becom¬ 
ing dangerous. I am not called upon in this discu.s.sion to expre.ss an 
opinion as to what I may think of the financial policy of a great Govern- 










iiieni which makes its circulation stand upon a short-legged silver dol¬ 
lar worth eighty-five cents, hut 1 mention it that my friend from Ohio 
[Mr. Sherman] may find food for reflection, for his proposed scheme 
goes to the same extreme in issuing circulation to the extent of |117 on 
a bond for w hich the pledge of the Government is only good for $100. 

The statement I have made seems to show that there is no present 
necessity for the issue of any new form of Government bond to meet the 
requirements of the national currency. Such a necessity can not arise 
while there are outstanding bonds which can not he called in for re¬ 
demption in less than from eight to twenty-four yearn to an amount 
three times that required for banking purposes. As long as these bonds 
remain outstsinding there can be no contraction by reason of the sale of 
the bonds by the banks, for the purchasing bank will reissue at once 
the amount W'hich the selling bank retires. There are $631,000,000 of 
the 4 percents yet for the banks to purchase, and in doing so the pres¬ 
ent market price would have to be raised to 138 before the result of 
the purchase would be as low an income as 2 per cent, per annum, which 
is the kind of bond prox)osed at the other end of the Capitol by Mr. 
Potter. 

There are also $250,000,000 of the 4^ percents, redeemable in eight 
years and measuring their market value by the 3 percents maintained 
at par, or even their present selling prices in the market, with circula¬ 
tion equal to the par value, which are even more desirable for this 
purpose than the 4 percents. This gap of unavailed-of privileges be- 
tw'een the whole bonds and those aetually pledged will not fail to keep 
reasonable the premium upon the bonds. 

I offer now a table showing the annual profit on circulation over and 


above the same investments without circulation, based on 4 per cent, 
bonds, costing 122, under this bill: 

Interest on $1,000,000 bonds at 4 per cent-$40, 000 

Interest on $1,000,000 circulation at 6 per cent- 60, 000 


Gross income_ 100, 000 

Yearly sinking fund, which will retire the premium of 

22 per cent, in twenty-four yearn-$4, 725 

Tax on circulation- - 10,000 

-14,725 

Net income with circulation- 85, 275 

Compare the cost of bonds loaned at 6 per cent., costing 122: 

$1,220,000 loaned at 6 per cent--$73, 200 


Profits on circulation- 12, 075 


Mr. ALDRICH. AVill the Senator allow me to ask him a question ? 

Mr. MCPHERSON. Certainly. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I should like to ask him whether the figures from 
which he now reads are the figures issued by a firm of bankers in New 
York several months ago ? 

Mr. McPherson. So far as the sinking fund is concerned I think 
it is the calculation made by Fisk & Hatch, of New York, although it 
has been subjected by me to an expert, and he agrees in their conclu¬ 
sions. Therefore I accepted it as being correct without question. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I should like to ask the Senator if he is aware that 
the banks throughout the country do not accept the computation as being 















G 


correct either in principle or in its matliematical calculation. I state 
that to be a fact, and I state also that the Government actuary and other 
Treasury experts, so far as I know, agree with the hanks in their con¬ 
clusions as to the accuracy of this computation. 

Mr. McPHERSOX. In any event there can not he any very material 
difference. There is no material difference, as I am informed, even 
among the experts. So, jiractically, for all the purposes of the argu¬ 
ment we will consider it to he correct. 

A .. ., , ...... 


Annual profit on 42 percents costing 116; 

Interest on §1,000,000 bonds at 42 per cent-§45, 000 

Interest on §1,000,000 circulation at 6 per cent- 60, 000 


Gross income- 105, 000 

Yearly sinking fund that will retire the premium of 

16 per cent, in eight years-§16, 108 

Tax on circulation- 10, 000 

-- 26, 108 


Net income with circulation_ 78, 892 

§1,160,000 (the cost of §1,000,000 4j per cent, bonds costing 

116) loaned at 6 per cent, would yield- 69, 600 


Increased profit from circulation_ 9, 292 


From the foregoing calculations it will he seen that with the increase 
of 10 per cent, in circulation, as this hill provides, even with the 4 and 
41 per cent, bonds, the national hanks will have considerable advantage 
over ordinary investors. 

If, hoAvever, it he found some additional inducement is needed, it 
would be much safer and better to reduce the tax on circulation than 
to adopt the plan proposed by the Senator from Ohio: 

The only consideration that has been urged with any show of reason against 
the repeal of this tax is that some provision should exist by which the circulation 
of the banks shall be charged with the cost of maintaining the National Currency 
Bureau at Washington. The absurdity of this argument is apparent when it is 
found that the expenses of the bureau for the last fiscal year were but S220,000, 
or less than one-fifteenth of 1 percent, on the average circulation of the national 
banks outstanding. 

In addition to the increased annual reserve which accrues to circula¬ 
tion over and above that obtainable by the ordinary investor who pre¬ 
fers a perfectly safe to a speculative investment, and who will be the 
only competitor the banks will have in the market for the Government 
bonds, and whose whole interest lies in the direction of low prices for in¬ 
vestment purposes, there remains yet other important pecuniary consid¬ 
erations, to wit: The national banks are made the depositories of Govern¬ 
ment money for a considerable period of time without the GoATrnment 
exacting interest, and the United States Treasury is made the clearing¬ 
house for the redemption of their notes w'hen presented for payment, 
which is not often, owing to the quality of the security which stands 
behind them; and it is not unreasonable to suppose that, compared 
with banking on any other principle or with less apparent security 
than the Government bonds, the banks thus organized will have a de¬ 
cided advantage in securing the patronage of deposits, which forms a 
very important item in the banker’s profits. 

Congress has bestowed on the owners of United States bonds this great ex¬ 
clusive grant overall other people —it has made their notes money. Who but a 
national banking association can pa?/his debt to another by giving his own note? 














7 


If I owe a debt which must be paid in money, iny note, however well secured, 
will not pay it. Again, I pay interest on my note and (/ley draw interest on theirs. 

In short, no successful banking, purely as such, can be maintained 
with profit except under the national system while the system remains, 
as it has always been, the pet child of Congress. 

The currency of money depends upon the security which it represents. 
Hence all current money must be secured by something. The money 
of a national-bank note is secured by United States bonds. United 
States bonds are secured by the honor and ability to pay the bonds. 
Honor alone can never be good security for the payment of money. It 
must be coupled with ability to pay. These together form the security 
upon which its promises rest and depend for their value; and if not so 
secured it will not be used as a medium of exchange. 

Our 3 per cent, bonds have now reached a higher market value than 
any like security ever before issued in this or any other country, and 
consequently are no longer sought by private investors. This applies 
with equal force proportionately to all other classes of our bonds. There¬ 
fore I think it safe to say not much higher rate of premium will be 
reached unless the bill of the Senator from Ohio becomes a law. It ^ 
will be remembered also these words are spoken at a time when the 
interest value of money was never less than now. 

My friend from Ohio [Mr. Sheeman], also from Vermont [Mr. MoR- 
rill], are armed with substitutes for this bill and have served notice 
of their intention to offer them in the Senate, both of which provide for 
the issue to the banks of circulation in excess of the par value of the 
bonds pledged to secure it. To all such measures of finance I am un¬ 
alterably opposed as unsound in principle and dangerous in practice. 
The bill offered by the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Morrill] is less 
vicious than that proposed by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Sherman] 
only because it travels a less distance in a wrong direction, the princi¬ 
ple being the same in both bills, and both should be rejected. 

The bill of the Senator from Ohio proposes— 

1. To issue circulation on the 3 percents to their par value. Of this 
we do not complain, it being our own proposition. 

2. To issue circulation on the 4^ percents to the extent of 95 per cent, 
of 112, or circulation $106.40. 

3. To issue circulation on the 4 percents to the extent of 95 per cent, 
of 124, or circulation $117.80. 

4. To issue circulation on the sixes to the extent of 95 per cent, on 
145, or circulation $137.75. 

The present market value of the last-named bonds being $1.35, it will 
be seen the Senator’s bill would enable the banks to pay for the bonds 
with the circulation issued upon them and have quite a margin of profit 
left. Upon what is this excess of circulation over and above the par 
value of the bond based. Certainly not upon any promise of the Gov¬ 
ernment, nor yet upon its credit. It is based solely upon the specula¬ 
tive value or market price of the bonds, and which may exist to-day 
and be gone to-morrow. 

Suppose that for some cause the bonds should .suddenly drop to par 
or below it, who is to redeem the excess of circulation above par ? The 
Government is not pledged to do it, neither is the bank to whom it is 
issued responsible, lor, having pledged the bonds as security for its cir¬ 
culation, no more can be exacted. In short, it is an unwarrantable I’avor 
extended to the banks which they neither need, ask for, nor expect, and 
if withheld will result in no disastrous contraction of the currency. 


8 


Who, then, wants this extraordinary measure? I have sought in vain, 
even among bank oflScers and owners, to find one single person careful 
of his reputation for financial sagacity who wmuld give it the sanction 
of his support as being proper legislation by Congress. One old and 
experienced bank officer declared it to be monstrous—and a most dan¬ 
gerous precedent to place upon the statute-books of the country; and 
besides he saw no immediate necessity for greater relief than would be 
given by authorizing circulation equal to the par value of the bonds. 
The bill now under consideration seems to meet every expectation and 
re([uirement, and T hope it will be passed. 


o 


THE FITZ-JOHN PORTER CASE. 



SPEECH 


OF 





IN THE 


SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 


MARCH 13, 1884. 


He who obeys with modesty, appears worthy of some day or other 
being allowed to command.”— Ciceko, Leg. Ill, 2. 


WASHINGTON. 
1884 . 









SPEECH 


OP 

HON. CHARLES F. MANDERSON. 


The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, having under consideration the 
bill (II. R. 1015) for the relief of Fitz-John Porter— 


Mr. MANDERSON said: 

Mr, President: It is not with the expectation that I may be able 
to add anything of value to the already vast accumulation of argument 
brought to bear upon the bill for the relief of Fitz-John Porter that I 
crave the indulgence and attention of the Senate. Gentlemen of distin¬ 
guished ability occupying places at both ends of the Capitol, lawyers of 
great erudition whose rejiutation is national, soldiers of distinction whose 
names are ‘ ‘ as familiar in our mouths as household words, ’ ’ have spoken 
and written upon the theme until it seems almost worn threadbare. He 
who would glean in a field wherein such expert harvesters have worked 
their sickles of research and reason must needs be content with slender 
spoil. 

It is not at all surprising that the interest of those who are to vote 
for or against this bill should remain unabated, nor is it astonishing 
that the general public should continue to be interested in the subject- 
matter. Since midsummer of 1862 this contest has continued. From 
the high noon of civil strife down through the eventful time to this 
peacelul eventide of national repose, through war and through peace, 
this claimant has urged that he has been most unjustly dealt with, 
and prayed for vindication. If an individual, however humble, was 
to be seen in midchannel battling bravely with combating waves in a 
veritable “struggle for life,” with what deeply felt interest would the 
bystanders watch his efforts, their feeling intensified perhaps by the 
fact that they were powerless to help. Here, in the face of the world, 
for nearly a quarter of a century has progressed a contest where the 
stake was dearer than life—a struggle to vindicate impeached honor, to 
clear smirched loyalty, to brighten tarnished reputation. What wonder 
is it, then, that the interest continues and that even the fledglings of 
the Senate should desire to record the reasons that prompt their votes 
for or against this bill? 

Let the conclusion of the observer of this contest be what it may, he 
can not but be struck with the persistency of this claimant for relief. 
His motto seems to have been, “Hope against hope, and ask till ye re¬ 
ceive. ’ ’ I for one would gladly reward such earnest endeavor, Nothing 




4 


would delight me more than to say to this man jileading for restoration 
of good name and fame, “You have been unj ustly dealt with. The tri¬ 
bunal that pronounced you guilty of disobedience of the orders of your 
superior, of disloyalty to your chief, was mistaken in its findings of fact. 
Blinded by the passions of the hour, prejudiced by the desire for some 
victim upon whom to rest the stinging blame of defeat to our arms, you 
were sacrificed. The ‘sober second thought’ has shown how greatly 
you have been maltreated. Take what of reparation a sorrowful and 
now grateful country can afford to you. Be restored to all rights of 
which you have been deprived. ’ ’ 

Senators, if I could say this to this claimant after full investigation 
and with determination to do my full duty, without bias or prej udice, I 
would not stop here. I would not be content with the half-way and 
inadequate reparation provided in this bill. No, no! I would go fur¬ 
ther in the name of justice and the right and say, ‘ ‘ There shall be given 
to you. General Fitz-John Porter, full and abundant righting of all your 
grievous wrongs. Be restored to the position in the Army of the United 
States yours in the natural order of events if this gross injustice had 
not been inflicted upon you. We can not restore to you the years that 
are past, but with a nation’s apology to ^mu we order that the only rec¬ 
ompense within earthly power to bestow, emolument, wealth, shall be 
yours.” I do not understand that the advocates of this bill biise the 
argument for its passage upon the proposition that it is in the nature 
of clemency or pardon, but rather on the ground that it is a new find¬ 
ing of fact u]3on new trial had, in which the claimant’s entire innocence 
of the offenses heretofore charged has been fully established. If this be 
so, why stop with the inadequate and paltry reparation for wrong in¬ 
flicted provided for by this bill? 

Mr. President, I came to the consideration of this case in a somewhat 
unusual manner. When elected to my seat in this honorable body I 
confess to an almost inexcusable ignorance of the history and merits of 
the Fitz-John Porter case. During those gloomy days in the country’s 
history when the court-martial iissembled, in the fall and winter of 
1862, and with General Hunter as president, and Generals Hitchcock, 
King, Prentiss, Ricketts, Casey, Garfield, and other distinguished mili¬ 
tary leadem composing the court, proceeded, under oath and with the 
sanction of the Constitution and laws, to try General Porter for dis¬ 
obedience of the orders of his superior and for shameful neglect to bring 
the troops under his command into battle, when other divisions of the 
Army to which he was attached were engaged, within distance where 
he could do great good, it was not my fortune to be where the news of 
the day was within reach. I was of the Army of the West, far re¬ 
moved from Washington, and where, by reason of our distance and the 
fact that we had usually sufficient on hand to keep us very busy, we 
knew but little of what was going on in the armies of the East. 

The war over, being engrossed with the duties and cares of civil life, 
the facts pertaining to the Porter case continued unknown to me. At 
last I entered upon its investigation from the standpoint of the accused. 
The first article presented to me and carefully read was the paper of 
General Grant, ‘ ‘An undeserved stigma, ’ ’ published in the North Amer¬ 
ican Review. This was followed by the letters of Generals Gran t, Terry, 
and others. Then the defensive pamphlet of Mr. Lord, and the rejjort 
of the majority of the Committee on Military Affairs of the Senate. This 
material, followed by numerous conversations with many gentlemen of 


the Army of the United States who are warm champions of the claim¬ 
ant, aroused in me much of sympathy for him, and a strong bias in his 
favor. It was as though I had listened to the testimony of the defend¬ 
ant and heard the impassioned appeals of his counsel only. 

Evidently it was my duty not to stop here. The case of the state 
had surely been fully made out, else the conviction at the hands of the 
competent tribunal of 1862 would not have followed. I went, therefore, 
to its record, and have tried calmly, dispassionately, as a juror to sift 
all the evidence, or as a judge reviewing the testimony under the law, 
to reach my duty in the vote to be given upon this bill. I confess to 
a feeling of some disappointment when I say that my vote will he in 
the negative. I would gladly join the ranks of those who, from a de¬ 
sire to do justice as they see the course of justice, or from motives of 
mercy as they see it right to be mercifril, Avill take the stain of over 
twenty years’ duration from this appealing old man; hut, under the law 
and facts as I see them, whether this proceeding he one of judicial re¬ 
view or the exercise of clemency, this bill should not pass. 

Not at length, Mr. President, but in such brief words as I may, I 
desire to give the reasons prompting me to this conclusion. 

The report of the majority of the committee asks for “a recision of 
the action of the court-martial.” Adopting the language of the ad¬ 
visory board, it asks that the Congress shall ^'‘anyml and set aside the 
findings and sentence of the court-martial in the case of Maj. Gen. 
Fitz-John Porter and restore him to the position of which that sentence 
deprived him. ’ ’ In other words, Congress is asked to act judicially and 
review the action of the highest tribunal having jurisdiction of the 
person and offense charged. A most dangerous precedent, truly, and 
one that, if followed, will surely bring greater evils in its train than 
even failure to give such vindication as the placing of Porter upon the 
retired-list of the Army, with the rank and pay of colonel, were he en¬ 
tirely innocent. 

What was the tribunal by which this accused was tried and found 
guilty ? It has become ‘ ‘ good form, ” ‘ Gn these piping times of peace, ’ ’ 
to sneer somewhat at and belittle the court-martial. Will gentlemen 
inclined to do so recall the fact that, while no jury is called to pass 
upon the guilt of the party accused, it is the court where trial by one’s 
actual peers is more nearly approached than in any other tribunal ? 
The judges of the law and fact are taken from the profession, the call¬ 
ing, and, as near as may he, are of the same station—rank—as the 
party accused. Under the safeguards thrown about it by the law and 
military custom the action of the court must needs he calmly delibera¬ 
tive. 

The accused may he heard in his own behalf and a latitude is given 
in the production and examination of his witnesses almost unknown in 
the civil courts. The prosecuting attorney of the civil law, keen for 
conviction, alert for the State, merciless to the prisoner, aiming fre¬ 
quently by unfair means and tricks of the profession ‘ ‘ to make the worse 
appear the better cause,’’gives place to the judge-advocate, bound under 
his oath to be the counsel of the accused person, protecting his rights 
and required to see to it that no injustice or unfairness is practiced upon 
him. In the taking of the testimony nothing is left to the uncertain 
memories of those who are to pass upon it. All is written that it may 
end ure and pass to the reviewing authority. In cases such as this no less 
a person than- the President of United States forms the court of last 


6 


resoi t, the tribunal finally to decide, and in this particular case the 
experienced lawyer, the sound j urist, the great patriot, the compassion¬ 
ate man—Abraham Lincoln—reviewed the action of the court. 

The Congress of the United States created this j udicial system under 
the Constitution. Says Benet in his treatise on military law: 

The Constitution of the United States empowers Congress “ to raise and sup¬ 
port armies; to provide and maintain a navy,” and ‘‘ to make rules for the gov¬ 
ernment and regulation of the land and naval forces.” As an essential part of 
these powers.it belongs exclusively to Congress to obtain or provide for courts- 
martial and define their jurisdiction ; to make their sentences final and conclu¬ 
sive or subject to a reviewing authority; to designate by whom they shall be 
convened and then confirmed or disapproved, and generally to make such stat¬ 
utory provisions concerning them as in their wisdom may be deemed proper 
and necessary. 

A court-martial is the proper and sole tribunal for the trial of military offi¬ 
cers. It is a lawful tribunal, existing by the same authority that any other court 
exists, and the law military is a branch of law as valid as any other, and it dif¬ 
fers from the general law of the land in authority only in this—that it applies to 
oflScers and soldiers of the army but not to other members of the body-politic, 
and that it is limited to breaches of military duty. 

Says the Supreme Court of the United States in case of ex parte Reed 
(100 U. S. Rep., 13): 

The constitutionality of the acts of Congress touching Army and Navy courts- 
martial in this country, if there could ever have been a doubt about it, is no 
longer an open question in this court. It is the organism provided by law and 
clothed with the duty of administering justice in this class of cases. Its judg¬ 
ments when approved as required rest on the same base and are surrounded by 
the same considerations which give conclusiveness to the judgments of other 
legal tribunals, including as well the lowest as the highest under the circum¬ 
stances. 

Said Attorney-General Cushiug in 1854, speaking of the reviewing 
power: 

The decisions of the President of the United States in cases of this sort are that 
of the ultimate judge provided by the Constitution and the laws. Like that of 
any other court in the last resort of the law it is final as to the subject-matter. 

This then the character of the court that tried Uitz-John Porter, and 
these the circumstances under which he was tried. A legally consti¬ 
tuted tribunal, composed of his peers, ‘ ‘ good men and true, ’ ’ having 
jurisdiction of his person and the offense charged, upon full trial, under 
all the safeguards of law, finds him guilty as charged. The highest 
reviewing power in the land examines the record and approves the find¬ 
ing. It is now proposed practically to usurp judicial powers by the 
legislative branch of the Government and ‘ ‘ revise and annid ’ ’ the action 
of this court. It is a proposition that may well startle the student of 
our form and frame of government. The dangers to flow from en¬ 
croachment by one of the co-ordinate branches of the Government upon 
the rights and privileges of another have been depicted by all our great 
writers upon the Constitution. The Supreme Court in numerous ad¬ 
judications has often sounded the alarm. From a case that happens to 
be at hand I quote familiar law, but not the less important because it 
is familiar. Says the Supreme Court in 13 Wallace, page 147, in the 
ca.se of United States vs. Klein: 

It ia of vital importance that these powers (the legislative and the judicial) 
.should be kept distinct. The Constitution x)rovides that the j udicial power shall 
be vested in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as the Congress shall 
from time to time establish. The same instrument in the last elau.se of the same 
article provides that in all cases, other than those of original jurisdiction,” the 
Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact, with 
such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. It has 


7 


already provided that the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction of the judg¬ 
ments of the Court of Claims on appeal. Can it prescribe a rule in conformity 
With which the court must deny to itself the jurisdiction thus conferred, because 
and only because its decision, in accordance with settled law, must be adverse 
to the Government and favorable to the suitor? This question seems to us to 
answer itself. ’Ihe rule prescribed is also liable to just exception as impairing 
the effect of a pardon and thus infringing the constitutional power of the Execu¬ 
tive. It is the intention of the Constitution that each of the great co-ordinate 
departments of the Government, the legislative, the executive, and the judi¬ 
cial, shall be in its sphere independent of the others. To the Executive alone is 
intrusted the power of pardon, and it is granted without limit. Pardon includes 
amnesty. It blots out .the offense pardoned and removes all its penal conse¬ 
quences. It may be granted on condition. * * * Now, it is clear that the 
Legislatme can not <*hange the effect of a pardon any more than the Executive 
can change a law. Yet tliis is attempted by the provision under consideration. 
The court is required to receive special pardons as evidence of guilt and treat 
them as null and void. It is required to disregard pardons granted by procla¬ 
mation on condition, although the condition has been fulfilled, and deny them 
their legal effect. This certainly impairs the executive authority and directs 
the court to be instrumental to that end. 

I can not refrain from quoting iiijon this interesting suiqect from a 
divStinguished military writer: 

This distribution of powers affords another strong and almost impassable bar¬ 
rier against danger from a standing army. If Congress controlled entirely, the 
military system would turn to despotism. If the Executive alone controlled, it 
would lead to oligarchy. The arrangement adopted harmonizes well with the 
theory of our institutions. It has ever been held of vital importance to separate 
as distinctly as possible the legislative from the executive power. 

Mr. President, if it should come to this Senate as an original propo¬ 
sition that, after conviction had by a general court-martial and approval 
of its finding by the President of the United States, the Congress should, 
upon the record as made, or upon additional testimony, re-try the cause, 
or that, upon conviction of heinous crime by one of the circuit courts 
of the United States, Congress should take to itself the rights of an ap¬ 
pellate court to review the record, afford a new trial, and increase the 
sentence or let the con\qcted prisoner go, the advocates of this bill would 
stand aghast. It may be that Congress h:is the right to do indirectly 
that which it can not do directly. It may be that under its undeniable 
power to increase or decrease the Army of the United States it may re¬ 
quire the Executive to issue commissions to whomsoever it pleases, but 
for one I do not believe it. This bill trenches uiion such dangerous 
ground that if I believed Eitz-John Porter all that the advisory board 
pronounce him, “a gallant soldier, unworthy of condemnation,” I 
would not support it. It is not only a usurpation of judicial power, 
but of the pardoning and appointive x)Ower of the Executive. 

Mr. President, during the last twenty years I have been engaged in 
the practice of law.. As I look back along the path of my professional 
life I see many wrecks. Frequently where I have been of counsel for the 
defendant, owing to the ignorance of courts, the imbecility of jurors, 
the perjury of witnesses, and I fear sometimes the incapacity of defend¬ 
ant’s attorney, conviction has resulted. The cases have gone to the 
courts of last resort under the law. The unfortunate victims of the ig¬ 
norance, the imbecility, the perjury, or the incapacity are confined 
within prison walls undergoing a ‘ ‘ continuing sentence. ’ ’ If this prece¬ 
dent is to be established, how gladly would I bring their cases to this 
new tribunal. Here are none of the uncomfortable barriers that hedge 
in a court. Loud and persistent asseveration will do here instead of 
testimony. Ex parte afiidavits will do better than living witnesses. 
Declamation may take the place of legal argument. The party lash may 


8 


be able to accomplish more than the charge of a court. A member of 
this Congressional bench may play the roles of witness, counsel, advo¬ 
cate, juror, judge, all at one time. Yes, if I am to correct the blun¬ 
ders and repair the misfortunes of my professional career, let me come 
with the causes of my unfortunate clients to this new tribunal, that 
has the power under this proposed precedent not only to construe but 
to make the law, that is bound by no rules of evidence, no code of pro¬ 
cedure, but may simply “ exercise its own sweet will.” 

If this legislative body is to revise the action of the Porter court- 
martial and its sentence, what if it should find him guilty as charged, 
and the degree of his guilt greater than found by the court ? Shall its 
revision extend to the enlarging of the sentence as well? ¥nder the 
provisions of the articles of war, flowing from violation of the ninth or 
the fifty-second article, there may come the penalty of death. If we 
are to have new trial and new judgment, why not new sentence? The 
reviewing executive evidently thought the punishment not commen¬ 
surate with the offense. How strong the testimony against this accused 
must have been when he with the kindest heart that ever throbbed in 
human breast could say, as Abraham Lincoln said, “Ihave read every 
word in that record, and I tell you Fitz John Porter is guilty and 
ought to be shot.” Such was his language at the time as evidenced 
by that reliable gentleman, known to many here, the former law part¬ 
ner of Lincoln, Mr. Leonard Swett, of Chicago. He writes to the 
Chicago Tribune of date February 9, 1884, as follows: 

Chicago, February 9. 

As the question of Fitz-John Porter is now occupying public attention, a con¬ 
versation I once had with Mr. Lincoln upon the question seems pertinent. I 
was standing in his room in the White House, near the foot of the long table be¬ 
hind which he sat, he standing with me, and we talking upon some subject for¬ 
eign to the one he introduced when he called my attention to a large record 
[pile of manuscript] lying near us on the table. “ That,” said he, ‘ ‘ is the record 
in the Fitz-.John Portercase.” The trial had then justclosed, andthe record ofthe 
evidence taken in it was, as I understood, before him for action. “ You know,” 
said he, ” if I know anything, it is what evidence tends to prove and when a 
thing is proven. I have read every word in that record, and I tell you Fitz-John 
Porter is guilty and ought to be shot." He then added something the Avords of 
Avhieh I can not remember, but the substance was : “He was willing the poor 
soldiers should die, ivliile he from sheer jealousy stood Avithin hearing of their 
guns waiting for Pope to be Avhipped.” I knoAv nothing of Fitz-John Porter’s 
case, but have deemed it my duty, as I happened to hear this conversation, to 
make it public. 

Yours, truly, 

LEONARD SWETT. 


Were corroboration of the statement of Mr. Swett needed it could 
be found in the sworn testimony of Hon. Robert T. Lincoln before the 
advisory board. He is testifying as to the statement of his father in 
regard to the Porter case, made shortly before his death; and I read a 
short extract: 


I recollect the distinct remark that he made, but at Avhat period in the con- 
A'ersation I do not noAv recollect. He said that the case Avould have justified in 
his opinion a sentence of death. 

Mark it! I do not say that Fitz-John Porter deserved death. I do 
not believe that he was either a traitor to his country or a coward. Of 
what offense I believe him guilty, under the proof and all the proof, 
whether taken before the court-martial or the advisory board, I will 
.seek to show before I get through; but what I insist upon is this: if 
we are to revise this trial, if the matter is to be heard by this Congress 


9 


exercising judicial powers, if the case is to be tried de novo, we should 
have the right not only to reward, but to punish; not only to reinstate, 
hut to destroy; not only to confer rank and honor, but to take liberty 
and life itself, if such be even-handed justice after full trial, 

11 would be most interesting matter for investigation to determine 
upon what rules we are now to determine the guilt or innocence of this 
convicted one. Is it to be because of error of law by the court-martial? 
If so, where is the assignment of error? Is it because the weight of 
testimony was in favor of the accused and not of the Government? We 
are taught by the books that a verdict or finding of facts should not be 
disturbed if there is any evidence upon which to found it; that the trial 
body that has had the benefit of seeing the witnesses who testified is 
better qualified to weigh the testimony and pass upon the truth or 
falsity of statements made under oath. Is it because of newly dis¬ 
covered evidence? None has been brought before this Congress. If it 
appears anywhere is it not merely cumulative in its character, and do 
not the authorities agree that a new trial should not be awarded be¬ 
cause of newly-discovered evidence that is merely cumulative ? Will 
it be claimed that we should overturn the finding of the court-martial 
and the approval of the reviewing President because three distinguished 
gentlemen, sitting without legal authority, proceeding without refer¬ 
ence to law or the rules of evidence, investigating sixteen years after 
the event, have given it as their opinion that Porter should not have 
been convicted ? Appellate courts, reviewing boards do not usually act 
upon the unauthorized opinions of mere outsiders. And so we might 
go on in wearisome speculation as to what manner of thing this is that 
is presented here for judicial action by a legislative body. Thanks to 
the wisdom of the past, there is no precedent for the strange action asked 
of this Congress. I fear greatly the elfect of the one likely to be here 
created. These considerations would prevent me from voting for this 
bill even did I believe Fitz-John Porter innocent of all that has been 
charged against him. 

But is he so ? In answering this question I do not propose to enter 
into any lengthy review of the testimony. He was charged with dis¬ 
obedience of orders, under the ninth article of war, and misbehavior 
before the enemy, under the fifty-second article of war. Let us glance 
very hurriedly at the proof in the record sustaining these charges, and 
take them in the order they are given. 

On the 27th day of August, 1862, General Porter being the com¬ 
mander of the Fifth Corps of the Army of Virginia, commanded by 
General John Pope, received about 9.30 o’clock in the evening an order 
commanding him to start with his corps at 1 o’clock that night on the 
march from Warrenton Junction, where he was then encamped, to Bris- 
toe Station, a distance of nine miles. It is admitted that he failed to 
obey the order, and claimed as matter of defense that in the discretion 
that rested in him he was not only excusable but justifiable in his dis¬ 
obedience. In the effort on the part of interested friends to exculpate 
this man from the charges made against him a new and most danger¬ 
ous doctrine is attempted to be introduced in military law, namely, 
that the inferior may deliberate upon an order received from his su¬ 
perior, and disobey, if in his opinion such disobedience is the part of 
better wisdom or superior j udgment. A monstrous doctrine, subver¬ 
sive of discipline, and one which, if carried into practice, will be fraught 
with dread disaster, if thi# country should again engage in war. I sub- 


10 


mit that such is not the law as written l)y the best military writers j 
it has never been the practice where there was competent, efficient 
chieftainship. 

Obedience, strict, prompt, unquestioning, active, whole-souled, pains¬ 
taking, willing, cheerful obedience is the highest duty of the soldier. 
Let us get away from the glamour thrown around this case by prom¬ 
inent advocates anxious for the restoration of Fitz-John Porter, and 
see what the best writers say upon this subject. Says Hough, in his 
Precedents in Military Law: 

Disobedience of positive orders isliif^hly criminal, and may arise either out of 
the refusal of the officer or soldier to act as ordered, or refusing to march whither 
ordered, or disobeying orders given on service relative to an attack upon the 
enemy. Whether the orders of the superior enjoin an active or a passive con¬ 
duct, the officer or soldier subject to them is equally obliged to obey; otherwise 
every military operation or enterprise would be made to depend not on the 
prudence or wisdom of the commander, but on the will or caprice of the soldiery 
either for the success or defeat of its object. Prompt, ready, unhesitating obedi¬ 
ence in officers and soldiers to their superiors is so necessary to the safety of the 
military state and to the success of every military operation or arrangement 
that it would be highly injurious to the interests of the army were disobedience 
in any case to be left unpunished. 

And again, on page 103 of his much-valued work, he says: 

Obedience to command is the chief military virtue, in relation to which all 
others are secondary and subordinate, and disobedience is reckoned among the 
principal military crimes, and is justly liable to the most exemplary punish¬ 
ment. The object of assemblingany force might be defeated if orders were not 
strictly obeyed even to the very letter. The operation of an army in the field, 
in which combination and concentx’ation of its forces are so often required, 
might be frustrated if there should be any disobedience on the part of any offi¬ 
cer commanding a force destined to join and act with such army. 

Let me depart from the quotation for a moment to call attention to 
the statement of the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Sewell], made 
yesterday, that his indictment against General John Pope was that he 
showed his utter lack of ability to concentrate his army in the presence 
of the enemy. He did lack that ability, but why ? This record answers. 
His orders to his subalterns that would lead, if obeyed, to concentration, 
were, so far as Fitz-John Porter was concerned, persistently disobeyed. 

Here there must be no discretion allowed; one supreme head directs the 
whole of the motions of the force and of its component parts. So general is the 
rule that the orders of the superior shall be imperative on the military inferior 
that it will not admit of exception unless when the orders or the things com¬ 
manded to be done are directly contrary to law. 

Now let US turn to De Hart’s Military Law, and on page 165 we read: 

Hesitancy in the execution of a military order is clearly under most circum¬ 
stances a serious oftense and would subject one to severe penalties; but actual 
disobedience is a crime which the law has stigmatized as of the highest degree 
and against which denounced the extreme punishment of death, and accord¬ 
ingly an offense of this nature, from the great danger which might result from 
it, would be very nicely scrutinized by courts-martial ere a justification would 
be admitted upon the ground that there was no lawful authority for the com 
mand given. In every case in which an order is not clearly in derogation o.. 
some right or obligation created by law, the commands of a superior must meet 
w'ith unhesitating and instant obedience. 

So then, under the authorities I have read, there was no discretion 
resting in the commander of the Fifth Army Corps. The command to 
march was a lawful one, issuing from an unquestioned superior—the 
chief of the army to which he was attached. It gave the reason for 
the haste desired. It said: 

start at 1 o’clock and come forward with your whole corps so as to be here 
by daylight to-morrow morning. Hooker has had a very severe action with the 


11 


enemy, with a loss of about three hundred killed and wounded. The enemy 
has been driven back, but is retiring^ along the railroad. We must drive him 
from Manassas. Send word to Morell to push forward immediately. Send word 
to Banks to hurry forward. It is necessary on all accounts that you should be 
here by daylight. 

Here was an order most explicit, filled with reasons tor prompt obe¬ 
dience, and, as I think, mnst strike every one as filled with something 
else. This reiteration and urging to prompt obedience is convincing 
that the chief was fearful that it would not be promptly obeyed. The 
same urging to obey is found in every order issued by Pope to Porter 
during those dark days. It looks as though the chief felt some distrust 
of the fealty of his follower, and I submit that the truth of history 
shows that distrust to have had abundant foundation. Porter did not 
march at 1 o’clock. He did not arrive at Bristoe at daylight. He ar¬ 
rived about 10 o’clock. But it is claimed that he could not. The 
statement is not borne out by the proof. It is said the night was dark. 
There are those upon this floor who have marched infantry troops when 
the nights were as “dark as a pocket.” 

During the Atlanta campaign men moved for miles through the dense 
Georgia woods, without roads, when the course of the column could only 
be tracked by the phosphorus of unburned matches rubbed upon the 
palm of the uplifted hand. It is shown that many commands, confed¬ 
erate and Federal, did march that night. There is the positive testi¬ 
mony of many witnesses that it was starlight, not raining, not cloudy, 
and troops marched without difficulty. The men were tired, it is said. 
The head of his column went into camp at Warrenton at 10 o’clock in 
the morning and his command was all up before dark. It is absurd to 
say that his head of column could not have started at 1 o’clock. It 
is claimed that the road was bad. Numerous witnesses say on oath that 
it was hard and dry. But it is suggested that it was blocked with 
wagons. The quartermaster in charge of the transportation swears that 
at 1 o’clock and from that time until daylight there were no wagons 
upon the road; that he parked them by the side of the road in the 
fore part of the night and moved them out again about daylight. At 
any rate, if Porter had desired to obey the order and reach Bristoe by 
daylight he could have taken his choice of roads, for the testimony is 
that there were two distinct roads, one on each side of the railroad, and 
on either one of the three roads troops could readily march. 

But it is claimed by the Senator from New Jersey that Porter was 
not needed, and such is the suggestion found in the report of the ad¬ 
visory board; that there was no necessity for his being there by daylight. 
I do not propose to reply to that argument, except to make this sugges¬ 
tion, that it would remind me somewhat of a defense that might be in¬ 
terposed by a burglar who, when brought to trial for a burglary, should 
say: “True, I broke into your house in the night season, but there was 
nothing therefor me to steal.” 

No ! He did not care to obey. He was indifferent to the wishes of 
his superior. He had no respect for his chief, and neglect of his desires, 
the frustration of his plans, was in accord with the real wishes of Fitz- 
John Porter’s heart. The criticising, captious, disgruntled letters to 
Burnside written on those days show it. Even the complimentary and 
easily satisfied advisory board are compelled to recognize it when they 
say in their report: “ It is our duty to say that the indiscreet and un¬ 
kind terms in which General Porter expressed his distrust of the capacity 
of his superior commander can not be defended.” 




IL' 


Porter must have been familiar with the sixth article of war: **AnT 
officer who shall behave with disrespect toward his commanding officer 
shall be punished.'- I take it he had read the language of that cel¬ 
ebrated writer. O'Brien, in his work on American military law: ’* There 
is no doubt that <;x>ntempt or disrespect to any superior officer is pun¬ 
ishable. ^I;my (iises in point might be cited. It is as a general rule 
not deemed a justification that the disrespectful expressions are truly 
merited.-’ He must have been tamiliar with the law: yet. feeling 
distrust of the cajvicity of his chief, holding him in contempt, express¬ 
ing his feelings to Genentl Burnside, and undoubtedly to others, he 
was guilty of that violation of his duty that even the ad^■isory lx»ard 
is compelleti to say “can not be defended.’' It was so notorious that 
even General McClellan had to beg of him to be loyal to his commander. 

Yes, here is the key-note of all this unfortunate business. It explains 
the constant delay, the ever-recurring disobedience, the failure to fight 
upon the 29th. He held Pope in contempt. He was jealous of his 
leadership. Hedreadeda victory that would advance him further. He 
did not desire defeat to our arms, but he was not anxious to see Pope 
win victory. Ah I the curse of this jealousy among the leaders of the 
armies of tiie East. McClellan, Hooker, Burnside, ^Meade, Pope—all 
fell as its victims. I thauk God that the generals of the armies of the 
AYest knew not the base feeling. Generous rivalry there was between 
the divisions and corps composing the Armies of the Tennessee and 
the Cum1>erland, but among its great leaders. McPherson. Log;\n. Sher¬ 
idan, Thomas. Grant, Sherman, there were no heart-burnings fromjeal- 
ousy, hatred, and ill-will. [Applause in the g:\lleries.] 

It is not my purpose to go into the testimony bearing upon the trans¬ 
action of the 29th of August. Suffice it to say that on that day a bat¬ 
tle was fought that raged from about 9 o'clock in the morning until 9 
at night. In that battle at different times and with varying intervals 
every part of the army commanded by General John Pope was engaged, 
except the Fifth Cor]>s commanded by General Porter. He was within 
hearing distance of the booming of the artillery and the rattle of mus¬ 
ketry. He knew ‘ ‘ the fight was on.'' He did not participate and his 
whole action during that day evidenced a determination not to join 
in the battle ^vith the troops under his command. Had he joined the 
fighting line and given to the men of his gallant corps the opportunity 
to help their fellows the great disaster of the next day—the ill-fated 
30th of August, when he did fight and with the rest of the Army of Vir¬ 
ginia was worsted—might have been averted. 

I believe from careful examination of the testimony that actuated 
by that distrust of and contempt for his commanding officer of which 
I have heretofore spoken he deliberately and willfully disobeyed the 
order of the morning of August 29 urging him to march toward Gaines¬ 
ville. I believe it to be established tiiat the order of 4.30 p. m. order¬ 
ing him “to push forward into action at once on the enemy's flank, 
and. if possible, on his rear,” although much delayed in its delivery, 
yet reached Porter in time to have enabled him by vigorous effort to 
strike a blow with telling effect. But instead of giving willing, prompt, 
and unhesitating obedience he ordered two regiments to feel of the 
enemy, and before they had opportunity so to do caused their return 
to the resting, passive, unaiding line of his corps. And so it was dur¬ 
ing all those closing days of August, 1862. Neither entreaty nor order, 
the sight of battle in which his comrades were being worsted, nor the 


sound of guns, could prompt liim to help with the strong arms of his 
ten thousand gallant men the commander whom he hated. He would 
help to weave no laurels for Pope’s inferior brow, Xo, Pope’s star 
must go down in disgrace and defeat. Read the significant dispatch to 
Burnside sent on the 28th, in which this envious subaltern says: “ My 
lucky star is always up alx>ut my birthday the 31st, and I hope Mc’s 
is up also.” “ Me,,” whose star is to be in the ascendant, is General 
McClellan. This great soldier is shocked at Porter’s want of loyalty 
to his chief. 

Look at this significant letter, written on September 1: 

I ask you for my sake, that of the country, and of the old Army of the Poto¬ 
mac that you and all friends will lend the fullest and most cordial co-operation 
to General Pope in all the operations now going on. The distresses of our 
country, the honor of our arms are at stake, and all depends now upon the cheer¬ 
ful co-operation of all in the field. This week is the crisis of our fate. Say the 
same thing to all my friends in the Army of the Potomac, and that the last re¬ 
quest I have to make of them is that for their country’s sake they will extend 
to General Pope the same support they ever have to me. 

******* 


To ilajor-General Portek. 


GEORGE B. 3IcCEEEL.\N, 

Major-General. 


Imagine any one writing a letter to Sherman or Sheridan or Thomas 
or McPherson to be true to Grant. 

But a few months before the day when Porter rested idly in the shade 
while the loud-mouthed cannon gave to him unheeded in\'itation, a far 
different sc-enewas enacted in the West, and I would like to hold it up 
in contrast. The capture of Fort DoneLson had opened clear i)athway 
by water and by land to our forces, and Grant, with his army, was near 
Pittsburg Landing. The glorious victory of Thomas at Mill Springs, 
the fell of Bowling Green, and the surrender of Xash\*ille had cleared 
Middle Tennessee for the marching columns of Buell. Along the beaten 
roads during the pleasant spring days they moved. On April 6, with 
the impetuous Nelk>n and the gallant Crittenden in the lead, the head 
of Buell’s army approached Savannah on the Tennessee River. The day 
was nearing its close and the tired men were longing for camp and rest. 
Suddenly the feint sound of a distant gun. Another and another in 
quick succession. The straggling lines of troops instinctively gathered 
in more compact form. Without command to that effec*t the marching 
step quickened. The sullen boom of the artillerj' was more distinctly 
heard as the distance lessened. The fact was apparent. Our brothers 
of the Army of the Tennessee were engaged. Tlie battle was on, but 
miles away and across the deep and rapid river. A long and wearisome 
march had been made that day by these divisions. Tired and hungry 
and likely so to remain, for there were no cooked rations in the haver¬ 
sacks. and the wagons miles to the rear and not likely to come up. The 
leaders of these commands need no orders to hasten on and let the rest 
be taken after the battle is lost or won. The ‘‘sound of the guns ” is 
all the order needed. The “old sea-dog” Nelson, taking to water natu¬ 
rally, I suppose, leaves the main road and leads his division over a shorter 
one through a swamp. CYittenden hurries on to Savannah. The waiting 
transports are loaded to the guards. The river Ls crossed, and Grant’s 
gallant troops, disheartened by the long day’s fight at fearful odds, 
welcome with glad shouts and tears of joy the leaders and men to whom 
the din of arms is an in\*itation and ‘ ‘ the sound of the guns ’ ’ an order. 
The rich reward is that on the next day the battle of Shiloh is con- 


14 


tinued and won, victory is wrested from the jaws of defeat, and the rebel 
retreat to the south goes on. 

The honorable Senator from New Jersey who addressed the Senate on 
yesterday gave us several instances where subaltern officers had dis¬ 
obeyed orders and had not been punished upon trial had. Did it strike 
him as he read the account that all the instances of violation of orders 
mentioned by him were those where the alleged military offense was 
fighting without orders? Unfortunately Fitz-John Porter was not so 
charged. Were it so he would have no need to be a suppliant asking 
Congreas to ‘ ‘ revise and annul ’ ’ the sentence of a court-martial. 

Mr. President, I oppose this bill because of the law and the facts; be¬ 
cause of the dangerous precedent and the bad example; because it is 
destructive of discipline and injurious to the well-doing of our Army; 
because I believe it to be eternally right so to do. f Applause in the 
galleries. ] 


o 


•* \- 



••y 


» ' 1- 

'". i.'* 

1’ I A. ■ ‘ 

' • < •.*. • 


t' 




» r» i#’ ’»* 


y^'* ‘ 

,■'' i. 


k.« 


. Tx'M 

-^! y ^ 

*. , 1 

p, 

1 

. , 

J ', 1 1 


•.I.’- 

1 

t •' f • 

•k,. 1 ’1 



.. ‘h •. 


'”. '''.' VI. : I- ' ' ■»■■ 

fl V> 


l>f 


''■^1 < '''"‘" ■.'. y ' 4 ''?* 




II • ^ 

'5^3 



I *' 



uU 


• <1 . » - 


I * <•/ 

.•;i 




' V . '■' rr 


* • " \\J\~ iik\K 

• ' ' ' il /' • ,i' ■ 

5 ;. 


fiLy ■' yw'-- 


iifiA.. f ‘ 


-..Aftul 

hi ; 


y.y 






PAYMENT OF PENSIONS. 




SPEECH 


HON. COURTLAND C. MATSON, 

n 

OF 


IN THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


Thursday, April 17,1884, 


I 


WASHINGTON. 

1884 . 






SPEECH 


OF 

HON. COURTLAND 


C. MATSON. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole, and having under consideration 
the bill (H. R. 6094) making appropriations for the payment of invalid and 
other pensions of the United States for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1885— 

Mr. MATSON said: 

Mr. Chairman: That branch of the public service on account of which 
more money is paid than on account of any other is certainly one that, 
as stated by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Goff], ought to 
engage the serious consideration of Congress. And so far as concerns 
every sentiment expressed by that gentleman in relation to prompt and 
effectual legislation in the interest of soldiers he will find in me, and I 
am sure, too, in the Committee on Invalid Pensions, at all times those who 
are ready to favor any proposition that will lead to it. I desire to say 
here also that I trust the Committee on Appropriations in the considera¬ 
tion of this bill will be liberal in regard to the matter of raising points 
of order against any proposed amendments, so that we may if possible 
accomplish some of the things which, as my friend from West Virginia 
has said, everybody concedes ought to be accomplished. 

I am in favor of his amendment with one or two qualifications which 
will suggest themselves if he will read the bill and the report sub¬ 
mitted on the subject by the Committee on Invalid Pensions. That 
gentleman proposes by his amendment that the rule shall be adopted, 
without any qualification, whatever, that all who served in the Army 
shall be presumed to have been sound at the time of enlistment. 

I suggest to that gentleman that certainly those disabilities ought to 
be excepted from the operation of the rule which were prescribed by 
an order of the Secretary of War to be such disabilities as would not 
prevent the enlistment of a man. That is one of the exceptions which 
he certainly will agree to. 

Then there is another w^hich I think is necessary. In case the Gov¬ 
ernment can show that any man enlisted knowing the fact that at the 
time of enlistment he was unsound, the Government ought not to be 
estopped from showing his fraud and deception in procuring the enlist¬ 
ment. It is a matter of public history that near the close of the war 
one of the regiments which were raised near Baltimore, Md., was com¬ 
posed very largely of that class of men who had been refused enlistment 
in other organizations. The gentleman certainly will not say that that 
class of men ought not to be excepted from the application of the rule 
which he proposes. 

With those modifications I think his amendment .should be adopted; 
and I am not only ready and willing to see it adopted to-day but I shall 
urge its adoption as a part of this appropriation bill. 

I have obtained the leave of the Committee on Appropriations to speak 






A 


( 



4 


in the time of those who favor this bill. But I wish to say before I 
proceed that I obtained that leave after explaining to the gentleman in 
charge of the bill [Mr. Hancock] that I would be compelled to take 
issue with the committee upon some minor points. 

As to the sum of the appropriation and the manner in which it is 
made I have but little to say; nothing in regard to the sum except that 
it is admitted upon all hands thattheamounthereby appropriated will 
be amply sufficient to meet all the expected demands of the ser\dce for 
the coming fiscal year. 

As to the manner of the appropriation there has been some criticism 
made. One gentleman has ventured to say that it involves within it a 
political trick; that because the amount of the unexpended balance of 
appropriation for the Pension Bureau for the present fiscal year is not 
named in round numbers it is to be assumed that those reporting the 
bill desire that it shall go to the country as appropriating less money 
than it really does. 

In answer to that I have only to say that so far as I can ascertain the 
facts the clause in the bill making the appropriation of the unexpended 
balance is in the usual language employed for that purpose. There cer¬ 
tainly is nothing in that criticism. Then the sum appropriated and the 
manner in which it is appropriated ought not to be criticised. 

But some new legislation is proposed by the committee in relation to 
specific matters outside of the mere matter of appropriation. 

Mr. PEELLE, of Indiana. Will my colleague [Mr. Matson] permit 
me to ask him a question ? 

Mr. MATSON. Certainly. 

Mr. PEELLE, of Indiana. Can the gentleman state to the House 
what will be the probable amount of unexpended balance remaining 
on the 30th of June next? 

Mr. MATSON. I understand that the estimated unexpended bal¬ 
ance will be $66,000,000. But if the sum of $66,000,000 should be 
appropriated as the unexpended balance, and there should happen to 
be more than that amount remaining unexpended at the close of the 
fiscal year, of course an unexpended balance would then remain unap¬ 
propriated. If the sum of $66,000,000 is named as the unexpended 
balance, and it should turn out to be more than remains unexpended^ 
then there would appear to be more appropriated by the bill than there 
really is. Therefore I say that the Committee on Appropriations is 
entirely justified in making the appropriation in the manner in which 
it has made it, and in fact it could make it in no other way. 

Mr. RANDALL. I suggest to the gentleman that in this respect we 
have followed the example of previous Committees on Appropriations. 

Mr. MATSON. As suggested to me by the gentleman from Pennsyl¬ 
vania [Mr. Randall], the Appropriations Committee has in this matter 
followed the example of previous Committees on Appropriations as ta 
unexpended balances not only in pension appropriations but in all others. 

Now as to the legislation suggested upon these specific subjects. In 
the first place, the committee proposes that we shall legislate in refer¬ 
ence to the fees to be paid to claim agents or attorneys. This I think 
was a wise thing for the Committee on Appropriations to do. Very many 
evils have arisen in the practice before the Pension Department; and 
they have arisen very largely from the fact that the Secretary of the In¬ 
terior has not been allowed to prescribe the qualifications of attorneys, 
and every man and every woman, without reference to his or her ability 
to prosecute a claim, has been at liberty to act in the capacity of a claim 


o 


agent. The Committee on Appropriations has not seen fit to propose 
any legislation in this respect. There, I think, tliey have made a clear 
omission; and but for the fact that the Select Committee on the Payment 
of Pensions, Bounty, and Back Pay will propose a substitute for this 
portion of the bill, I should offer an amendment in this regard taken from 
abill introduced by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Morgan], which 
I think would meet the approval of this House. It simply declares that 
the Secretary of the Interior shall have the right to prescribe the quali¬ 
fications of those persons who practice before the Pension Department. 

The evils which have grown up in the i;)ractice before this Depart¬ 
ment have resulted not only from that cause, but also from the fact 
that attorneys were allowed to collect their fees in advance. In this 
respect the legislation ju’oposed by the Committee on Appropriations 
meets the evil. They propose to amend the law so that the fee of the 
attorney shall be collected only upon the allowance of the claim, and 
shall be contingent wholly upon its successful prosecution. But I 
think the Committee on Appropriations in this j)roposed legislation 
have not met the whole evil. I believe that many soldiers have had 
just ground of complaint on account of the restrictions which have 
been put upon their right to contract for the payment of fees. In this 
way they have been prevented in many cases from contracting for the 
payment of a fee large enough to enable them to prosecute successfully 
a claim more than ordinarily difficult. It has thus happened that 
very many claimants have been unable to prosecute their claims at all, 
because they were prohibited from contracting for the payment of any 
fee greater than $10. In my judgment, the law ought to be so amended 
’as to allow the claimant to pay with the approval of the Commissioner 
of Pensions a fee as great as $25. 

I have carefully read the substitute which will be offered for the 
second section of this bill by the Select Committee on the Payment of 
Pensions, Bounty, and Back Pay; and I find that this proposition meets 
these evils in all particulars, and I shall therefore give it my hearty 
support. 

While the Committee on Invalid Pensions has not taken any formal 
action upon this matter, I feel safe in saying, from what I know of the 
discussions in the committee on this subject, that they will approve the 
substitute to which I have referred. That substitute provides that the 
Secretary of the Interior may prescribe the qualifications of attorneys 
prosecuting claims in his Department; and it thus meets one of the evils 
I have pointed out. It provides further that no fee shall be paid by a 
claimant until the claim has been allowed; and that a fee of $25 may 
be contracted for, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Pen¬ 
sions. 

The substitute contains other provisions which I need not recite. It 
also guards the interests of the soldier as to contracts already made and 
does not permit any demand upon the part of the attorney for any greater 
fee than the law now allows in cases pending at this time. 

Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a word in regard to another subject about 
which the Committee on Appropriations propose that Congress shall 
legislate—the compensation to be paid to pension agents. I started 
out with the belief that the Committee on Appropriations had fixed a 
proper sum as compensation. It wasniy opinion.that the filling ot these 
vouchers could be contracted for at a less price than 5 cents each; that 
these pension agents, if allowed 5 cents for the filling of each voucher 
above one thousand in each quarter, could by a system ot subletting 


If 


6 


have the vrork done for about 3 cents each. After more mature investi¬ 
gation I think I was not entitled to come to that conclusion, because I 
started with the belief that all that was necessary to be done was simply 
to fill the vouchers, mail them to the claimants, and afterward forward 
them to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury. But upon a 
careful survey of the whole matter, in conjunction with the Commis¬ 
sioner of Pensions, I have made up my mind that perhaps 10 cents for 
each voucher would be about right. My judgment is that we ought 
to make this allowance. I do not like the proposition submitted by the 
gentleman from Minnesota; I think this preferable. If a sum in gross 
should be allowed to pay the expense of clerk-hire there might be dif¬ 
ficulty in adjusting the particular amount which this or that pension 
agent should receive. 

It would be difficult, therefore, to distribute it equitably; but on the 
basis of paying to each a sum certain for work done there can be nothing 
inequitable about it. 

Mr. WASHBURN. Let me ask the gentleman from Indiana this 
question, whether under the operation of this rule of paying so much 
apiece it operates justly and equitably ? For instance, if you fix a cer¬ 
tain amount, say 15 cents apiece, for the preparation of vouchers, we 
will suppose in some office it produces $8,000 more than is actually 
expended. The result is it gives this agent in the way of perquisites 
about $4,000; that is, instead of giving him the same salary as the other 
agents, he gets twice the salary in the way of perquisites. The point 
I make is that we should so adjust it as to eliminate the element of per¬ 
quisites. I do not believe in any perquisites under any government. I 
believe in paying a definite amount, and then the country knows ex¬ 
actly what is paid. It was with that view that I made the suggestion 
I did. 

Mr. MATSON. I have already answered the gentleman’s question 
as far as I can. My belief is if a sum certain is fixed for each voucher 
the sum paid to the pension agents will be more equal necessarily than 
it could possibly be under any other system. That is my judgment. 
There is a matter of judgment between us; the gentleman from Minne¬ 
sota thinks otherwise. I can not. 

Mr. Chairman, in addition to what has been said in relation to the 
manner in which these pension agents are to be compensated I wish to 
suggest that during the last Congress I urged upon the attention of the 
Committee on Invalid Pensions the substitution of the supernumerary 
paymasters to fill the office of pension agents. It is well known 
there is a large number of them, enough and more than enough su¬ 
pernumerary paymasters of the Army to fill the office of pension agents, 
and I think that it ought to be done. They are men qualified to do it, 
and these Army officers have never been in any sense political agents. 
They have a record for financial integrity second to no other class of offi¬ 
cers in the Federal Government, or in the government of any of the 
States. They are well qualified to do it, and I am informed by my 
distinguished friend from California, General Roseceans, who has most 
thorough information in relation to Army matters, that he will offer 
an amendment of that kind providing that these supernumerary pay¬ 
masters shall be detailed for the purpose of filling the office of pension 
agents. That proposition will meet with my approval and shall have 
my hearty support. 

A good deal, Mr. Chairman, has been said in relation to the matter of 
special examiners. Some complaint has been made that the claims 




7 


which are now pending in the Pension Office have been greatly delayed, 
and some have assumed to say that these delays have occurred be¬ 
cause of the fact that the claims have been referred to special ex¬ 
aminers who go out to the homes of the claimants and examine into 
the matters connected therewith. There has been some delay, possibly 
some unnecessary delay, and the Commissioner of Pensions has asked 
Congress to give him an additional force in order that he may relieve 
that complaint as to the special examination of claims. 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions have before it a bill introduced 
by the honorable gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Petees], and have been 
considering that matter. That bill asks for one hundred and fifty more 
special examiners to be selected from those skilled in the law, and to 
confine the appointment to lawyers to be employed for one year, their 
term of office to end at that time. The Committee on Invalid Pensions 
have not regarded that proposition with favor. As we understand the 
law enacted July 25, 1882, it gives the Commissioner of Pensions the 
right to detail from among his clerks any number of persons he may see 
fit to send into the field to act as special examiners. 

Mr. PETERS. I desire to ask the gentleman whether it is not the 
fact that the Commissioner of Pensions can not spare any more force 
from the Pension Office for that purpose. 

Mr. MATSON. Upon the contrary, the Commissioner of Pensions 
has recommended in his report the reduction of his force to the extent 
of two hundred and fifty clerks July 1, 1884. That is a reduction of 
one hundred more than the number provided in the bill of the gentle¬ 
man from Kansas. But I wish to be fair and just to the Commissioner, 
and I will say that in addition he insists these men nowin the Pension 
Office, and whom he proposes to discharge at the end of the present fiscal 
year, are not the best qualified for that purpose. 

Mr. PETERS. Let me ask another question. Is it not the duty of 
the Commissioner to supply that force of special examiners from the 
men most competent to do efficient service ? 

Mr. MATSON. I understand that is so, but I can see no reason for 
having lawyers, and only lawyers, to go out into the field to discharge 
no other function than merely writing down testimony, not having to 
decide any case at all, for the cases come to the Pension Office to be de¬ 
cided. I say I can see no good reason why these clerks in the Pension 
Office would not be more competent to perform that duty, men who 
have worked about the Pension Office for a long time and are perfectly 
acquainted with the modes of business. And more than that, the old 
soldiers I know would be much better satisfied to have old soldier com¬ 
rades who have had experience in these pension matters, and who can 
enter into sympathy with their experiences, to handle their cases than 
to have the young lawyer, fresh from a law school and with no Army 
experience, and without any ability to understand or appreciate the 
statements of those who were familiar with war in its actual facts. 

Mr. PETERS. I would like to ask one further question. 

Mr. MATSON. Certainly. 

Mr. PETERS. Is it not a fact that these special examiners must 
necessarily weigh evidence and must be conversant with what is com¬ 
petent and what is non-competent testimony ? 

Mr. MATSON. I think not. Their duties are essentially different. 
The case is sent to the board of review to be adjudicated, and within 
my own observation and experience more than one case has been rec¬ 
ommended by the examiners in the field which has been rejected by 


8 


the board of review in the Pension Office. These examiners do not in 
any sense of the word decide the case. It is the practice of the office 
to take their recommendations and the matter passes a revision before 
this board of review. But it is not now and has not been the law that 
these examiners shall decide the case. 

Mr. REED. But let me ask the gentleman, is it not essential that a 
lawyer shall be employed in order to get at the testimony that is neces¬ 
sary ? Is not a knowledge of the law of evidence an absolute essential 
to the proper discharge of the duties of that position ? 

Mr. MATSON. I think not. In my judgment and from a very ex¬ 
tensive observation in the Pension Office I can say that there are plenty 
of clerks who have been employed there for two years who are quite as 
well prepared to go out into the field and write down the testimony 
that is submitted ordinarily in pension cases as the lawyer. 

Mr. REED. But does not the examiner of the Pension Department 
have something else to do as well as to write down the testimony in 
the case ? Is it not expected that he shall examine it, cross-examine 
it, and is he not expected to be competent to hunt up additional testi¬ 
mony as well as to examine the testimony brought before him ? It is 
a duty, it seems to me, which requires the services of a lawyer, and a 
lawyer alone, and which could not be performed by a person who was 
not a lawyer. Besides that, it is necessary to have something besides 
two years’ training in the Pension Office for a proper performance of 
this work outside of it. 

Mr. MATSON. My own observation is that there are very many 
there who are quite as efficient to perform these duties as a lawyer, al¬ 
though‘they have not studied even the elementary principles of law. 
A lawyer is certainly not necessary. But I do not care to pay any fur¬ 
ther attention to that particular subject. I do insist, however, that the 
remedy is in the hands of the Commissioner of Pensions now, and that 
he can detail from his office under the general appropriation bill pro¬ 
viding for the payment of pensions, passed in 1882, enough men to re¬ 
lieve the Pension Office of this work so far as the clog in the work of 
special examinations is concerned. 

A great deal has been said in relation to the examining surgeons. 
There have been many complaints made upon that point. Some gen¬ 
tlemen have gone so far as to say that these examining surgeons have 
not done justice to the soldiers. Possibly there may be some excep¬ 
tions of that kind; but I must defend the administration of the Pension 
Office in that particular. I insist that the Pension Office and the Com¬ 
missioner of Pensions, in the selection of surgeons, has, as far as possi¬ 
ble, selected them from among those who served as army surgeons. He 
has selected therefore those who were soldiers themselves to examine 
the soldiers, in so far as he could. And what, let me ask, can be sug¬ 
gested to replace the board of examining surgeons ? I asked the gen¬ 
tleman from Ohio the same question the other day, as to what he would 
suggest instead, and after some circumlocution I understood him to say, 
though I have not been able to see his remarks in print, that he thought 
a sort of neighborhood court would answer the purpose; a court where 
the witnesses and the lawyers and the doctors could all meet and upon 
an investigation of the subject the lawyers, the witnesses, and the doctors 
could fix upon a rating for the man for his particular disability. That 
is what I understood him to suggest as the preferable plan, and which 
would obviate the complaint that one man here in the Pension Office 
revises the work of all of the examining surgeons. There is one man 


9 


there for that purpose, and it is absolutely necessary that one man 
should do the work in order to secure uniformity in the rates. If any 
other system is resorted to there would be one rate here and another 
rate there for the same disability; but when one man reviews the work 
of the pension examining surgeons the effect is an approach at least to 
uniformity of rating. There may be just complaints in individual 
cases against some of the examining surgeons; but the complaint against 
the office of examining surgeon is not well founded and can not be sus¬ 
tained. 

In the deficiency bill already passed an appropriation was made for 
these examining surgeons on account of the expense largely exceeding 
the estimate for the last fiscal year, and I say that the Government has 
not spent any money that has made a better return than that which 
has been spent for these examining surgeons. There is no money that 
has brought a better return, not to the Government only but to the 
soldiers; and who will deny that when this matter was left to the ex¬ 
amination of one surgeon, either through ill-will, prejudice, or some¬ 
thing of the kind, wrong was more likely to be done than through the 
judgment of a board of three surgeons? 

So I say that these approi^riations to pay these surgeons ought to be 
made cheerfully. I think, however, they are paid just $2 where they 
ought to be paid $1. The office of the examining surgeon has got to be 
quite a lucrative one. I apprehend if the whole amount appropriated 
was divided by the number of examining surgeons it would be found 
the members of the boards of examining surgeons are paid now a sal¬ 
ary equal to nearly $1,500 a year; and they have their time, almost 
all of it besides, to devote to the practice of their profession. I think 
they are paid too much, and that if the fees were reduced to $1 for each 
examination we could have just as competent surgeons, and there would 
scarcely be a resignation in the United States on account of the reduc¬ 
tion of fees. 

Mr. CANNON. Will the gentleman allow me a single Ciuestion ? 

Mr. MATSON. Certainly. 

Mr. CANNON. I desire to ask the question because I know my 
friend from Indiana would not do the Commissioner of Pensions an in¬ 
justice. I was absent a moment ago when he si)oke of the special ex¬ 
aminers. My friend is aware of this fact, I take it; if not I would be 
glad to have it appear in the Rpx’ORD: First, that the clerks the Com¬ 
missioner propo.ses to dispense with are copyists who do machine work. 
Second, even if you had clerks competent to do this examining work 
the appropriation for the per diem and traveling expen.ses of these people 
is not sufficient, and they have had to call in the present force. A few 
days ago a provision was made for a portion of the present force in the 
urgent deficiency bill. We gave a small additional balance to enable 
the Commissioner to keej) the present force. I speak of this because I 
know the gentleman from Indiana does not desire to do the Commis¬ 
sioner an injustice. 

Mr. MATSON. I am far from wishing to do the Commissioner of 
Pensions an injustice, for taking it as a whole I approve of his admin¬ 
istration, and what I said on that subject I stated very carefully. I 
stated when the gentleman from Illinois was absent that the Commis¬ 
sioner of Pensions insists that the men he has in his office now whose 
services he does not need he regards as not qualified for the work. 

Mr. CANNON. And there is no appropriation to detail special ex¬ 
aminers. 


10 


Mr. MATSON, 
lion than I have, 
tions. 

Mr. CANNON. 
Mr. MATSON. 
Mr. BRUMM. 


As to that matter the gentleman has more informa- 
as he is a member of the Committee on Appropria- 


Such is the fact. 

I have no doubt it is as the gentleman states. 

Does the gentleman from Indiana not know that the 
Commissioner of Pensions has called in a number of these special agents 
because of the deficiency in the appropriation ? 

Mr. MATSON. I am not aware of that. 

Mr. BRUMM. I know that is a fact. 

Mr. MATSON- Possibly these have been called in to the office because 
they were found to be not adapted to •that work. I know there were 
recently about two hundred and sixty of them in the field, and I know 
my friend from California [Mr. Roseckans] will propose that the re¬ 
tired Army officers be detailed for the purpose of taking charge of these 
special examinations. I shall not favor that proposition in so far as it 
proposes to take away from the work those who have already acquired 
some skill in it; but I will favor it in so far as it proposes the Commis¬ 
sioner of Pensions shall draw upon them for any additional force that 
is necessary. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I shall venture to trespass upon the committee 
with a few observations in relation to general pension legislation, and 
I am free to say that I do this mainly for the purpose of showing that 
the Committee on Invalid Pensions has not been negligent of its duties 
in this Congress, and that it has in every practicable manner under¬ 
taken to meet the reasonable demands of the brave men who have served 
their country in its hours of danger and who deserve the most liberal 
treatment at the hands of a prosperous people. But before I proceed 
to point out what has been accomplished, I wish to say that there are 
differences here among the legislators as to what legislation should be 
passed, just as there are differences at home among the soldiers them¬ 
selves as to which of the many meritorious propositions should be pre¬ 
ferred. It is not expected or even hoped that all of the many demands 
for legislation in the interests of ex-soldiers will be accomplished at 
this Congress, and each particular measure has its champions. 

If I was allowed to select from among all the one which I would first 
pass, upon its right to precedence, it would be a just measure to equalize 
the bounties of all the soldiers in the late war for the Union. Such a 
bill was passed in the Forty-third Congress and was allowed to fail to 
become a law upon the ground that the condition of our finances would 
not permit the expenditure of the large sum required in that direction. 
Such an objection could not now obtain, and the justice of the measure, 
affecting as it would so large a number of the late defenders of the 
Union, can not be successfully denied. We are able now to do justice 
to those who at the first signal of danger rallied to the defense of the 
flag and who were influenced, not by the promise of large bounties as 
rewards, but solely by a high sense of duty. This legislation should 
not be postponed a single day, and I trust that the Select Committee 
on the Payment of Pensions, Bounty, and Back Pay, which has exclu¬ 
sive jurisdiction of this subject, will speedily report a bill of this kind 
and urge it to its passage. 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, in attempting to bring to the 
attention of the House such legislation as in its judgment could be 
formulated into laws, on the 20th day of February reported to this 


11 




House a bill to prescribe a rule of evidence in pension cases, which I 
ask the Clerk to read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Mr. Matson, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported the following’ 
bill as a substitute for H. R. 2023, 2276, and 4281 : 

A bill prescribing a rule of evidence in pension cases. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress asseinbled, That in the adjudication of claims for pension on 
account of physical disabilities contracted in the military or naval service of the 
Government, including those claims already filed, no proof of soundness prior 
to being mustered into said service shall be required, and the Government is 
hereby declared to be estopped from making said inquiry by proof of the fact 
that the soldier or sailorAvas regularly mustered into the service: Promded, 
That this act shall not apply to such physical injuries or deformities as were at 
the time held to be.no bar to being mustered into said service, nor to cases of en¬ 
listment or muster into service through the fraud or deception of the soldier or 
sailor, the burden of the proof of which shall be upon the Government. 

Mr. MATSON. This legislation was suggested by a bill referred to 
the committee, and introduced by the honorable gentleman from Michi¬ 
gan [Mr. Eldredge]. We insist, and shall insist, that it contains 
in its provisions a statement of a principle of absolute justice to the 
soldier. The whole matter may be briefly stated as follows: That it 
is not right for the Government to receive a soldier as sound and free 
from disability, accept his service as such, and then, after a lapse of 
years, as a condition precedent to the enforcement of his rights, require 
that he should prove that fact. We have been informed during the 
progress of this debate that the Committee on Payment of Pensions, 
Bounty, and Back Pay will on Monday next move to suspend the 
rules and pass a bill to give relief in this direction. I have not exam¬ 
ined the proposed legislation, but I take it that it has been carefully 
drawn and will be found to be effective for the removal of the gross 
wrong so justly complained of by the soldiers of our country. 

INCREASE OF WIDOWS’ AND DEPENDENT RELATIVES PENSIONS. 

A bill was introduced by me in this House on the 29th day of Jan¬ 
uary last to increase the pensions of all widows and dependent parents 
from $8 to $12 per month. This was reported favorably to the House 
on the 1st day of March, and is now upon the Calendar of the Com¬ 
mittee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. I expect at the 
earliest opportunity to move to suspend the rules and pass this bill, and 
for that reason I am sure that I will be indulged now in pointing out to 
the House the scope and effect of this legislation. 

I know that the first inquiry that will arise will be as to the cost of 
the proposed measure, and it is a matter of sincere satisfaction to me to 
be able to say to the House that a calculation has been made, with the 
aid of those greatly experienced in pension matters, and for many 
years employed in that branch of the public service, which I do not 
hesitate to say to the House may be taken as a full estimate of the ad¬ 
dition that will be made to the annual value of the pension-roll. In¬ 
deed, I am satisfied that in no year will the figures be reached that we 
have submitted in our report upon this bill. 

This rate of $8 per month for widows of soldiers was established in 
1816, and although since then every other rate has been increased, they 
have been neglected. At the time this rate was fixed for them it was 
the highest rate known to the law paid to any soldier for any disability. 
Now it is well known many receive as much as $72 per month for cer- 


12 


tain extreme disabilities, and hundreds of thousands of othei*s now re¬ 
ceive more than is allowed to this most worthy and deserving class. 
The law contemplates that this pension shall supply the means of sup¬ 
port that are taken away from them by the death of those upon whom 
they were entitled to depend. Who will say that the present rate of 
$8 in these times will be equal to the sheerest necessities of the most 
humble of them. So that, considered either in its relation to the other 
or in the abstract, it must be admitted that justice demands of us that 
we should extend to them some relief. 

Another view of this matter I wish to suggest to the House. No 
pension bill could be suggested that would tend more toward a just 
and equitable distribution of pension-money to the difierent sections 
of the country. It is a well-known fact that the pensions that are paid 
to those who live in the States lately in rebellion against the Federal 
authority are paid for the most part to the widows of the wars in 
which the Government was engaged prior to 1861; and while it is not 
denied that in all general pension legislation, so far as localities are 
concerned, the advantage is of necessity with the States who stood by 
the Government in its greatest war, yet in this legislation our friends 
from the South must see that the luoposed bill will add to the share 
of their people as much as any bill that could be framed. No opposi¬ 
tion has as yet been developed to this most righteous proposition that 
tends in the direction of caring for those who have sutfered most from 
our wars and are so illy able to care for themselves, and I indulge the 
hope, and have allowed that hope to grow into a fixed belief, that when 
the proposition is submitted to the House no voice will be heard toop- 
pose it. 

INCREASE OF PENSION TO THOSE WHO HAVE LOST ONE EYE. 

This'Congress has received many petitions upon the subject of in¬ 
creasing the pensions of those who were then pensioned at $4 per month 
for the loss of one eye. Upon an investigation of the subject the Com¬ 
mittee on Invalid Pensions discovered that this was purely an office rate 
and not controlled by any law, and that the remedy for what seemed 
to be a palpable wrong was entirely within the power of the Secretary 
of the Interior. So that committee at once addressed a letter to that 
officer, and the result is to be seen in the letters which I now send to 
the Clerk’s desk to be read: 

Department op the Interior, Pension Office, 

Washington, D. C., March 6, 1884. 

Sir; I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt by reference of the letter 
addressed to you on the 26th February, 1884, by the individual members of the 
Committee on Invalid Pensions, in which they call your attention to the low 
rate fixed by the rule of the Department for the disability arising from the loss 
of one eye. I find upon investigation that it has been for so many years the rule 
to rate the loss of one eye at one-half of total rate that the original order estab¬ 
lishing the same has been lost, and the oldest employe of this bureau can not 
remember when such has not been the rate. It has, therefore, the sanctity of 
custom, and may be regarded as an established rule of the bureau. The injus¬ 
tice, or rather I would say the inadequacy of such a rate for such a disability / 
has been apparent to me for a long time. Not the least important factor in 
such a disability is to be found in the deformity and its conspicuous prominence. 

After mature deliberation and consulation with different persons in the office 
who have had long experience, I am free to say that in my judgment the rating 
of total according to^rank for the loss of one eye, or the sight thereof, wliere the 
other eye is not complicated or affected through .sympathy, will not be consid- 
eredan excessive rating. In this connection allow me to call your attention to 
the rating for partial deafness. The statute, section 4698, provides for total deaf¬ 
ness for both ears at the rate of $13 per month. I would suggest as a fair sub¬ 
stitute for the existing rule, upon the rating for partial deafness, that the max¬ 
imum of $13 be considered as 13-18 disability as fixed by section 4696, Revised 


13 


Statutes, and that inferior degrees 
to comport with the actual degree 
I have the honor to remain, 

Hon. H. M. Teller, 

Secretary of the Interior. 


be rated at 12-18, 11-18,10-18, 9-18, 8-18, &c 
of disability found from partial deafness, 
very respectfully, 

W. W. DUDLEY, Commissioner, 


Department of the Interior, Pension Office, 

Washington, D. C., March 29, 1884. 

Sir : Since writing the letter I had the honor to address you on the 6th in- 
stant, relative to the proper rating to be fixed for the disability occasioned by 
the loss of an eye, in which I stated “that in my judgment the rating of total 
according to rank for the loss of one eye, or the sight thereof, when the other 
IS not complicated from sympathy, will not be considered an excessive rating,” 
my attention has been called to the decision of Mr. Acting Secretary Cowen 
and Secretary Delano, dated, respectively, the 11th and 25th of June, 1874, in the 
case certificate No. 75652 of O. H. P. Krise, and your attention is respectfully 
invited to the same. 

In these decisions it will be seen a distinction is drawn between a disability 
caused by the loss of _the_ sight of one eye and the disability caused by the loss 
of the eye itself. This distinction, in my opinion, is just and proper, and after 
having fully considered the matter, I am now of the opinion that the disability 
occasioned by the loss of the sight of one eye should be rated at total grade of 
rank, and that the disability caused by the loss of one eye, with the consequent 
deformity, should be rated at third grade, except in cases where that grade is less 
than total of rank. 

Very respectfully. 


W. W. DUDLEY, Commissioner, 


The honorable Secretary of the Interior. 


Department of the Interior, 

Washington, April 3, 1884. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a communication dated 
the 26th ultimo, signed by you and other members of the Committee on Invalid 
Pensions of the House, recommending thatin the adjudication of claims for pen¬ 
sion by the Pension Office, the rate of pension for disability resulting from the 
loss of one eye be increased beyond that now fixed bv that office for said disa¬ 
bility. 

In reply I transmit herewith copies of letters dated the 6th and 29th of March 
froiu the Commissioner of Pensions, in which he recommends that the practice 
of his office be modified to allow higher rates of pension as therein specified for 
the loss of sight of one eye and for the loss of an eye, and also an increase in the 
allowance of pension for disability for partial deafness. 

I have approved these recommendations and have instructed the Commis¬ 
sioner to cause the practice of this office to conform thereto. 

Very respectfully, 

W. M. TELLER, Secretary. 

Hon. C. C. Matson, 

Chairman Committee on Invalid Pensions, House of Representatives. 

Thus it will be seen that something has been accomplished for this 
worthy class of pensioners to the extent of giving them hereafter double 
the rate they have heretofore received. 

Mr. Chairman, there is another subject to which I wish now to in¬ 
vite the attention of this committee. In the estimation of the great 
majority of the soldiers, I feel sure it is regarded as necessary to do 
justice to all. It rests upon the axiomatic proposition that if a soldier 
is entitled to a pension he is entitled to be paid from the date of his 
disability or discharge. The statement of this proposition is, as already 
suggested, the proof of its correctness. It is not right to pay a pension 
to one soldier from the date of his disability or discharge and to another 
from a date long after his disability. Some remedy is demanded for 
this manifest wrong, and I shall be ready to give my support to any 
measure that can the most certainly and speedily apply a remedy, par¬ 
ticularly to those who are now suffering from the injustice. Manyob- 


14 


jections are made to auy further legislation in this direction, because it 
has been found to be expensive because it has stimulated the filing of false 
claims and because those who now feel aggrieved once neglected an op¬ 
portunity to get their full rights. 

It wili not be denied that there is some force in the last two objec¬ 
tions. It has also been said that an absolute repeal of the statute of 
limitations as to the filing of jDension claims would not only stimulate 
the filing of false claims, but that the cost of such a measure could not 
be estimated, and that no prudent legislator ought to embark in any 
measure of legislatioir without being able to at least ai^proximate the 
expense thereby entailed upon the people. There is force again in this 
objection, but I submit that a measure proposing to extend the bene¬ 
fits of the act giving arrears of pension to all these who have filed their 
claims up to some given day in the recent past would obviate this very 
strong objection. Such a measure I hope to see soon reported to this 
House, because I think it can be passed; and while it may not be all 
that it is desired, nor indeed all that may be rightfully demanded, yet 
it will almost entirely equalize the rights of those who are now receiv¬ 
ing pensions and be an earnest that the great principle of justice to all 
is the established policy of the Government. 

There are other matters of general legislation relating to pensions to 
which I would be glad to call the attention of this House, but I know 
that I have now trespassed upon the time of an overtaxed Congress, and 
I shall soon yield the fioor. I can not, however, leave this subject with¬ 
out inviting members of this House to scrutinize the work of the Com¬ 
mittee on Invalid Pensions. By day and by night this committee has 
labored to the end that not only justice shall be done in the way of gen¬ 
eral pension legislation but that in individual cases equity may be done 
to the worthy soldiers and their representatives who fail in the prosecu¬ 
tion of their claims under the law because of technicalities. 

That committee up to this time has had referred to it 2,097 bills and 
600 petitions, about one-third of all the bills and petitions introduced 
in this House. Of these we have reported upon 532, and it is only fair 
to say that the credit of such a record is due very largely to the in¬ 
dustry and ability of individual members of the committee, and con¬ 
spicuous among us where all are compelled to do much hard work—I 
am sure it will not be regarded by my brethren upon the committee as 
making an invidious distinction when I state the fact that one-third of 
these reports have been made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Bagley], who has shown not only an extraordinary diligence in the 
business of this session but has at all times brought to the consideration 
of these individual claims the most just discrimination, indefatigable 
industry, and kindly disposition toward the soldiers of the Union who 
offered themselves to their country in the hour when it most needed to 
be upheld by strong arms and brave hearts. Others of this committee 
are entitled to honorable mention, but the work of the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Bagley] has been so conspicuously successful that I 
should fail to respond to the most generous impulses of my heart if I 
did not review it briefiy here. 

One word, Mr. Chairman, and I have done. I know that much is 
expected from this House in the way of legislation in the interest of 
the ex-Union soldier. In fact I am not prepared to say whether too 
much has not been expected, and whether there has not been encour¬ 
agement given to this expectation in the hope that the soldiers would 


15 


find themselves disappointed. I can only say now that I feel sure that 
when the sum of all the legislation by this House is added that is had 
at even the present session the soldiers will have no reason to complain 
when they compare it with that accomplished at any long session of any 
Republican House. The Democratic party will continue, as it has been 
in the past, the friend of the soldiers of this country, and it will be, as 
I am sure it should be, guided by this motto: Just and reasonable leg¬ 
islation in behalf of the soldier, so that the pensions paid by the Gov¬ 
ernment may continue to be popular with the people. 

O 


♦ 




% 


1 




/vV..N*:'-, >*•• • 
W*-* • . 


h:> 


J 




/ 


,1 

^•:0’ 

• I '. ' • 

^'■i ' 


m 


, < 

V 


>! 


11> :• •. 


u 


r«j:' I 


V • 




> 

r . ' 






/ 


'/ »5 


>^ .*• 

■v 




' 0.{ ^ 


V, 


■t; 

jM' ^ 


k i 
V 




U ^ j' : 



/ . ' 


4 t* , ■ ’ 

• -v :' 

-' .'l/.rff. 


■ '«■ 







4 

.*'. , 


II 




ny . >: 
'YV/‘' • ‘ 

' f,t ’'V».' ' 

M'V i 


Ky' ■„ ; 

(•r‘.- 


, \ 




■ r4 









■•If >. ’ 


• I 

'.r,. 




• \ 


■ VK, •. 

« -■'■ u*' ; 

« 

I'w •'» 


,;vrw 

.V V? , - .. 

y,'U/},.'•" •■' 


^ 'r 


i. 

'■ 7 • 

,• 1',- 


• , I' 


7* • y » 

«A * 




t| 

« » 

tr 




4 


. i 


i , 

4 



' ' 0 


'4 


I 





*• ^* 1 '^ 1 


I 


■*' ' ■ 


‘•'i' ■ 


^ ■; 


« ■ t. , V 


' 1 ^ 


A \. 


.V* 


; > 


.V i 




. \ 






:■•>;;?< iur.v 




4. r 

' ’;v ' 

■f A. 


.’■V 


. I 


/ 


ir 


T 

\ 


. 4 ♦ 

4 . ••• 

• . '• 1 


4 



» . 












\ , ^’•'. >*4' . *t 




. 


\ 





SPEECHES 

OP 

HON. S. B. pXEY AND HON. RICHARD COKE, 

CF TEXAS, 

In the Senate of the United States, 


May 7 and 8, 1884. 


SPEECH OF HON. S. B. MAXEY, 

Wednesday, May 7, 1884. 

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, liaving under consideration the bill 
(8. 1448) to remove certain burdens on the American merchant marine and en¬ 
courage the American foreign carrying trade, and for other purposes— 

Mr. MAXEY said: 

Mr. President: I voted for the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Missouri [Mr. Vest] granting the right to American citizens to 
purchase ships anywhere and of registering them as American vessels 
for the sea-going trade, which was voted down yesterday evening, l)ut 
I shall still vote for the bill for the reason that although the bill in 
charge of the Senator from Maine does not go so far in favor of remov¬ 
ing restrictions from the carrying trade as I would like, still it is a 
movement in that direction and I shall favor it. I favor it because I 
am in favor of removing restrictions from trade in any and every way 
save those restrictions justly and constitutionally imposed for the pur¬ 
pose of raising a revenue for the support of the Government econom¬ 
ically administered, and I oppose any and every restriction whatever 
upon any lawful trade save and except for that purpose. 

On the 25th of February, 1833, more than fifty years ago, the great 
champion of protection, Henry Clay, in his speech in this body in sup¬ 
port of the tariff-compromise bill then pending, said: “The friends of 
free trade insist that duties should be laid in reference to revenue alone. ’ ’ 
As an honest man, despising word quibbling, he stated truly the posi¬ 
tion of his political adversaries. It is the position of the opponents of 
protection to special industries to-day. In that sense L am for free 
trade. 

I know that that view of the question has but recently been met and 
the friends of the protection of special industries in a fair and square 
fight with the friends of those who believe in raising tariff for revenue alone 
were successful; that the opponents of special protection to special in¬ 
dustries, the advocates of tariff for revenue alone, went down defeated 
but not dismayed. It is but a few hours since that I heard the sten¬ 
torian voice, vse metis, uttered triumphantly by those who have always 



2 


been the friends of the protection of special industries, and I did hear 
a weak, timid echo of “ woe to the vanquished” faintly on the air from 
a shifting contingent without whose aid they never could have succeeded. 
But that does not dismay the friends of the people in their great effort. 

Let not our hereditary adversaries lay the flattering unction to their 
souls. They did not defeat us, but defeat came from the household of 
our friends—friends! 

The battle-ground is changed. We challenge combat in a fair field 
before the people, the source of all political power. We may be defeated 
again and again, but with the courage of conviction, daring the enemy 
in the very citadel of intrenched, ill-gotten power, we will triumph in 
the end. We have come demanding this great right in the name of a 
suffering people, and we have come to stay. 

That the view I take may not be regarded as the view of an extremist, 
I have jotted down what was said by the ablest man that New England 
has ever yet produced on the very question of a protective tariff and an 
unrestricted shipping industry. Daniel Webster in his great speech 
on the 1st and 2d of April, 1824, in his unanswerable reply to Mr. 
Clay, uttered these words; 

In short, sir, the general sentiment sets with a strong current in favor of free¬ 
dom of commercial intercourse and unrestrained Individual action. Men yield 
up their notions of monopoly and restriction as they yield up their prejudices, 
slowly and reluctantly, but they can not withstand the general tide of opinion. 

This grand man uttered this grand truth more than sixty years ago. 
It prevailed in 1846 and abided till 1860, and the country was never 
more prosperous. 

It is again before the people. They are aroused; they are seeking 
light; they will get it, and the intrenched monopolists of to-day will 
yet learn that there is a greater power than wealth wrested from the 
people by unjust taxation—that power is the people, the source of all 
political power. 

So I say that although we went down before monopolistic power yes¬ 
terday, and although we went down yesterday evening in the effort to 
secure free ships, still, defeated as we were, we are not dismayed, and 
I trust to the people to unfurl the banner in favor of free ships, of trade 
with every restriction removed save that imposed for the just adminis¬ 
tration of the Government economically administered, and let them 
inscribe upon that banner the motto: “No tax but that honestly laid to 
support the Government honestly administered.” In hoc signo vincea. 
The battle on free ships has been transferred from the Senate to the 
people, on the subject of a tariff for revenue alone from the House to 
the people. There we will meet their opponents squarely and fairly 
before the people, in whom is all inherent political power and by whose 
authority governments were instituted and for their benefit. To them 
we appeal, and I defy any man to strike out the enacting clause of this 
issue. 

If there is one principle in Democracy above any other it is that the 
will of the majority fairly expressed is the will of the party. We ac¬ 
cept the gage; we rely on the intelligence of the people, and in the end 
right, justice, without special privileges to any, with equal and exact 
justice to all, will prevail. 


3 


SPEECH OF HON. RICHARD COKE, 

Thursday, May 8, 1884. 

Mr. COKE said: 

Mr. President: I propose to vote for this bill when it is put upon 
its final passage, and I desire to say that I approve its general object. 
While there may be some of its provisions that I would not entirely ap¬ 
prove, I do not think it liable to some of the objections that have been 
made against it, and especially to the objection made by the Senator 
from Delaware [Mr. Saulsbury] yesterday that section 19 contains a 
provision for a subsidy. Section 19 provides: 

And the aggregate amount to be expended for such service shall not exceed 
the gross revenue of the Post-Office Department of the United States on mail 
matter sent to and received from foreign countries during the fiscal year next 
preceding the year in which such contracts are made, less the amount paid for 
transportation on foreign vessels, and the net amount paid foreign administra¬ 
tions for intermediary, territorial, and sea transit of such mails. 

There is not one dollar to be taken from the Treasury of the United 
States under this section. Every dollar that is to be expended under 
this section is to be earned by the Government of the United States in 
its foreign mail service, is to be evolved from the operations of the 
Government in the foreign mail service. 

I would be as clear of voting for a subsidy as any gentleman on this 
floor, but I vote heartily and freely for this section so far as this point 
is concerned, because I believe that the Government has a perfect right, 
and that it is expedient and politic that the Government should improve 
its foreign mail service with the revenues earned by the Government in 
that service involving the imposition of not one dollar of taxation ujKin 
the people. 

I regret that the amendment proposed by the honorable Senator from 
Missouri [Mr. Vest], which would repeal existing laws on that subject, 
and permit citizens of the United States to purchase ships anywhere 
where they could buy them cheapest, was not adopted and ingrafted 
upon the bill. I voted for it. I believe that it is an amendment which 
should have been adopted; but it was rejected. I will not allow the 
fact that the amendment was rejected to cause me to vote against the 
bill. There are some good things in it. There are many burdens taken 
off of American shipping, many things provided for in the bill which 
in my judgment will add something to an improvement in that branch 
of our service. 

I believe, however, that the bill does not reach the root of the evil. 
While I will vote for it I do believe that the great cause, not I may say of 
the decline, but of the absolute destruction of our foreign merchant 
marine, among a variety of minor causes the great cause, the paramount 
one, the leading cause of its destruction I believe to be the protective 
tariff system. 

Ships and sailors are the outgrowth of commerce; they spring up 
spontaneously and grow out of commerce. If we had commerce we 
would have ships and we would have sailors; but we have no commerce, 
and therefore we have neither ships nor sailors. Why have we no com¬ 
merce? And by the term “commerce,” in the sense I use it, I mean 
mutual exchange of commodities. Why has our commercial marine 
dwindled until I think it was last year or the year before the Secreta^ 
of the Treasury reported to Congress that the number of ships built 
was not quite sufficient to supply the place of those that had decayed 
daring that fiscal year ? Why is this ? 

y 

\' 


4 


We remember the time when the ocean swarmed with American ship¬ 
ping and every port in the world saw in the American flag an every¬ 
day visitor. We remember when America was a close competitor with 
England for the commerce of the world; and now we have to confess 
that England has achieved a magnificent supremacy and does even 85 
per cent, of our own carrying. Why is all this ? Mr. President, it 
is on account of our protective system, which obstructs commerce; it 
is on account of a protective tariff which excludes foreign exchange; it 
is on account of a system of legislation upon our statute-books which 
says to the Avorld, “ We will not exchange with you.” Therefore we 
have neither ships nor sailors, which alone exchange and foreign com¬ 
merce can produce. 

You can not discuss the question with reference to ship-building and 
the merchant marine without getting upon the tariff. The tariff is the 
underlying cause of its annihilation, for I speak, I think, within the 
bounds of accuracy when I say that our merchant marine has now no 
existence. I therefore will make a few remarks and detain the Senate 
but a few moments on the subject of the tariff. 

In the spring of 1882 we passed what was called the Tariff Commission 
bill. The result of the labors of a shamelessly packed commission was 
in due time promulgated in an elaborate, ingenious, and utterly unscru¬ 
pulous defense of the worst features of the protective-tariff system. In 
the spring of 1883 the Senate, recognizing the urgent necessity of making 
a show of resjAonding to the popular demand for a reduction of the bur¬ 
dens of the tariff, seized the opportunity presented by a bill sent from 
the House the preceding session abolishing the internal-revenue tax on 
cosmetics, perfumery, patent medicines, bank checks, &c., and in¬ 
grafted upon it by way of amendment a revision by schedules, which 
was claimed to be a reduction of the tariff. So palpably a false pretense, 
so plainly an attempt to deceive the country with a sham and a coun¬ 
terfeit was this so-called revision and reduction that the people from 
every section and State and division of the country spurned it, and the 
recent unsuccessful effort at tariff reduction voiced simply a great popu¬ 
lar demand. 

The intelligence of this country can not be hoodwinked any longer. 
The tariff, in spite of the schemes of politicians and the plans of aspir¬ 
ing trimmers to OA^erslaugh it Avith the Tariff Commission, to settle it 
by a fraudulent, pretended, and utterly false so-called revision and re¬ 
duction, in spite of all the bosh and drivel that has been talked about 
‘ ‘ takiug it out of politics and settling it on business principles, ’ ’ and 
of every other device and pretext that could be deAused for suppressing 
and covering it up and hiding it away has come to be the leading, para¬ 
mount, absorbing issue in American politics. The question has come 
to stay, because brought forward by the people. It was not made by 
their leaders, but forced upon them after they had exhausted all the 
resources of political gymnasts to dodge, evade, and shirk it. The ques¬ 
tion is ^eater than any party. It Avill not down; it will not be still; 
no consideration of party expediency or of personal promotion or of 
spoils of office or of political success or defeat will arrest or quiet it. 

The question is a great popular one, thrown into the political arena 
by the people who make and unmake parties, and will be held up and 
pressed by them as a vital, living issue, regardless of all consequences. 
We are collecting under the present tariff from the people $100,000,000 
annually more than is needed for all the purposes of the Government. 
This is a great Avrong against the Constitution, against good morals, 


5 


I 


against a loyal people, and the only way to correct and right it is to. 
reduce taxation down to that level which will bring only such amount 
of revenue as is needed to support the Government. All revenue 
exacted from the people beyond this is taken in defiance of all consti¬ 
tutional or moral right. A high obligation rests upon the people to 
furnish the revenues necessary to support their Government, and a 
eorresx)onding right exists in the Government to levy and collect taxes 
sufficient for this purpose. Beyond this there is no obligation on the 
people and no rightful power in the Government. 

The crime of subjecting the people to excessive and burdensome and 
unnecessary taxation, producing a surplus revenue, which invites ex¬ 
travagance, which leads to the invention of new methods and lines of 
expenditure, which stimulates peculation and whets the appetite and 
sharpens the wits of the legions who infest this Capitol for prey and 
plunder, which demoralizes and corrupts the Government in all its 
branches and ramifications, is getting to be understood audits enormity 
appreciated by the country. The shifts and evasions and equivocations 
and prevarications, the sophistries, the play upon words, the platitu¬ 
dinous generalities, meaning anything or nothing as occasion or locality 
may suggest, through and by which the plain people of this country 
are sought to be confused and mystified on this subject are also getting 
to be understood. It is a stubborn fact that a vast amount of money 
not needed for any of the purposes of the Government, wrung from the 
people through the medium of the tariff, lies accumulated in the Treas¬ 
ury and is pouring in every day. 

The Secretary of the Treasury so reports it, and advises that taxation 
be reduced as the only preventive of a still farther accumulation. This 
confessed, undenied tkct can not be explained away or confused or made 
doubtful. The paltering and meaningless clap-trap of which the tariff 
plank of the Ohio Democratic convention is an average specimen, so 
much indulged in by party platforms and ambitious aspirants for pop¬ 
ular favor when attempting to straddle the tariff question and capture 
the support of both protectionists and anti-protectionists, is powerless 
to obscure that great fact. A failure to put an end to this worse than 
useless flow of the hard earnings of the people into the Treasury will 
need no explanation. It will be rightly understood by the country to 
have but one possible meaning, and that, that the special interests to 
build up and enrich which the tariff tax is levied are more powerful in 
this Capitol than the people themselves. There can be no other reason 
for it. 

In a period of profound peace we are living under a system of taxa¬ 
tion devised to meet the expenditures of the greatest war of modern 
times; a system claimed when enacted to be temporary, and intended 
solely for the great emergency then existing, but which ceased eighteen 
years ago. The Tariff Commission even, created for the purpose of 
whitewashing the protective system, under the pressure of an intel¬ 
ligent public opinion which it was unable wholly to withstand, ad¬ 
vised an average reduction of from 20 to 25 per cent., yet the last Con¬ 
gress, Republican in both branches, the creator of that commission, 
while assuring the country that the recommendations of the comniis- 
sion would be followed, and endeavoring since to create the impression 
that they have been followed, reduced the tariff an average of only 
about 2 per cent., the average of the old tariff being 45 per cent., 
whereas that of the revised tariff of 1883 is about 43 per cent. 

This uncandid and disingenuous attempt to mislead the country into 


0 


thebeliefthat a substantial reduction of the tariff has been made, coupled 
with the persistent and stubborn opposition to any and every effort to 
reduce the tariff, shows a fixed determination that taxation shall not 
be reduced, that the people shall not be relieved, and that revenue not 
needed for any legitimate purpose of honest government shall continue 
to accumulate in the Treasury. Ordinarily it is a most pleasant and 
grateful duty, zealously and promptly performed, to lighten the bur¬ 
dens of taxation on the shoulders of the people, when it may be done 
without imparing the efiiciency of the administration of the Govern¬ 
ment. The obstinate refusal to perform this act of justice and duty to 
the people now is of itself conclusive evidence of a fundamental wrong; 
a fatal defect in our plan and method of raising revenue. A system so 
constructed as to promote and build up infiuences so powerful as to be 
able to successfully witlistand a great popular demand for the reduction 
of confessedly excessive revenues, as ours does of necessity, needs refor¬ 
mation. A statement of the proposition is the strongest argument in 
its support. 

The pernicious principle of “protection,” whether “protection for 
protection’s sake ” or “the adjustment of tariff duties in such mode as- 
will give the incidental protection of a revenue tariff to the advancement 
of American industries,” must be eliminated from our revenue system, 
for both mean precisely the same thing and produce precisely the same 
result. As long as the right of any industry to have all the people of 
this country taxed for its support and enrichment, either under a di¬ 
rectly protective or incidentally protective tariff, is recognized in the 
legislation of the country as is done in the existing tariff, so long will 
our revenue system be the monstrous engine of oppression it now is, 
and so long will the protected interests fattening upon taxation exacted 
from the people be powerful enough to override the will of the people 
as they are now doing in preventing a reduction of taxation. 

Those who favor ‘ ‘ the equitable distribution of the incidental protec¬ 
tion of a revenue tariff, ” and those who are frank enough to admit 
themselves in favor of ‘ ‘ protection for protection’s sake, ’ ’ recent events 
conclusively show mean the same thing, aim at the same end and 
accomplish the same result, to wit, a high protective tariff. The dif¬ 
ference between them is simply verbal. They vote together, w^ork to¬ 
gether, scheme together, and are in full accord both as to methods and 
results. The debates and votes in Congress on the tariff show that 
Democrats who favor the ‘ ‘ equitable distribution of the protection inci¬ 
dental to a revenue tarift’” stood shoulder to shoulder and side by side 
with Kepublicans who honestly avow themselves in favor of ‘ ‘ protec¬ 
tion for protection’s sake,” both fighting against and successful in de¬ 
feating revenue reform and tariff reduction, and thoroughly in accord 
in perpetuating in a time of profound peace a war tariff. The tariff 
planks in the Ohio and Pennsylvania Democratic platforms, the latter 
being an exact copy of the former, mean and are intended to mean a 
high protective tariff. Under them as moderate, conservative, and short 
a step toward tariff reform as the Morrison bill was consistently and 
stubbornly opposed and defeated. 

The leader who is understood to be the author of the Pennsylvania 
platform headed and was the brains of the opposition to that bill, yet 
he claims to favor only the “incidental protection of a revenue tariff.’^ 
I have no denial to make of the sincerity of those who set up this claim, 
but deal with facts as I find them and as the record shows them; and 
the facts of history establish beyond the shadow of a doubt that the 


7 


existing tariff, which produces $100,000,000 more than can he expended 
in a most extravagant administration of the Government, which was en¬ 
acted to meet the expenses of a great war, has been and is sustained and 
its reduction persistently opposed by gentlemen who claim to be opposed 
to protection for protection’s sake, and to favor only the incidental protec¬ 
tion of a revenue tariff. In practical results, full-fledged, openly avowed 
high protectionists and the incidental protectionists are precisely the 
same. The latter*pile up the duties, raise the average of the tariff, and 
produce all the results desired by the former. 

It is no impeachment of the honesty of these gentlemen to say this, 
for nothing is more natural or inevitable, when the principle of protec¬ 
tion is once admitted to be legitimate in constructing a tarifl', than for 
each Congressional district in each State to claim for its own interests a 
share ol‘ this protection. In order to get it they must pool issues and 
combine; they must give to each its share in order to command the nec¬ 
essary strength for the bill; and when all are provided for, as they 
always are, the end attained is a tariff protecting every industry in the 
whole country regardless of revenue, while the great mass of the peo¬ 
ple are saddled with the burdens. This is the history of all tariff legis¬ 
lation when the element of protection is allowed to intervene. There 
is no exception to it; it has never failed in a single instance to be so. 

The path of safety and of difty lies in expurgating our revenue sys¬ 
tem of the odious and un-American idea that the people may be taxed 
for purposes other than the support of their Government; in denying 
the right of any man’s business to have taxes laid on the people for its 
maintenance and support; and in levying import duties solely with 
reference to the money to be placed in the public Treasury for the sup¬ 
port of the Government. Upon a great question like this no concession 
can be made further than that the reduction shall be gradual, and that 
luxuries shall be discriminated against and the necessaries of life favored. 
Let the friends of honest taxation for Government purposes only stand 
unflinchingly by their colors and assert unyieldingly the right of the 
majority to rule. Their cause is that of 50,000,000 people, less 5 per 
cent, of the number, who are being enriched by taxation which oppresses 
the remaining 95 per cent. We have been defeated when we had a right 
to expect triumphant success, but appeal with abiding confidence to 
the great American people for vindication of the right. Parties may 
come and parties may go, but this question of honest tariff taxation for 
the public purposes of Government only is here to stay, and will re¬ 
main until vindicated and settled and established and fixed as the rule 
and law of this Government. The issue is made up, and we go to the 
country upon it. Let the people speak out in their primaries and con¬ 
ventions and declare their will and assert their power for their own 
deliverance. 


O 




Civil Pensions. 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON. STEPHEN 0. MILLARD. 

OP NEW YORK, 

In the House of Representatives, 


Friday^ 3IarcJi 14, 1884. 


The Hou.se being in Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, 
find having under consideration the bill (H. R. 99) granting a pension to the sole 
surviving grandchild of the author of the Declaration of Independence— 

Mr. MILLARD said: 

Mr. Chairman : I thank the distinguished gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Hewitt] for granting me a portion of his time in which to he 
heard upon the question under consideration. 

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this bill ought not to pass. If I 
uudersttind the provisions of the bill correctly it proposes to place the 
name of the grandchild of Thomas Jefferson upon the pension-rolls of 
the Government for the sole reason that she happens to be his only sur¬ 
viving descendant. I have examined the majority report of the com¬ 
mittee with great Ciire, and if any other reason is given or stated I have 
been unable to find it. 

Now, sir, I have no doubt but that the person named in the bill and 
to whom it is proposed to pension for life at the rate of $2,500 a year 
is a very intelligent and worthy person. The fact that her cause is 
championed upon the floor of this House by my venerable friend and 
colleague from New York [Mr. Robinson] is sufficient evidence of the 
fact, and while I fully appreciate the value and importance of the serv¬ 
ices which the author of the Declaration of Independence rendered his 
country, and while I agree with him in all he has said or can say in 
praise of the great virtues and distinguished talents of Thomas Jeffer¬ 
son, I still think the bill under consideration wrong in principle and 
if allowed to pass would establish a precedent that would give this 
House much trouble in the future, * 

Sir, this measure is not only without a precedent but is in violation 
of the Constitution and opposed to the lifelong teachings of Thomas 
Jefferson himself. Pass this bill and your Private Calendar will be 
crowded with thousands of just such measures as this. Pass this bill 
and the dream of the distinguished member from Colorado [Mr. Bel- 




9 


ford] would be realized, and you will have paved a way for unlockmg 
the vaults of the National Treasury. No; the bill is wrong in jDrinciple 
and without aprecedent in the history of the legislation of this countiy. 

My distinguished friend from New York [Mr, Robinson] says that 
the last Congress voted the widows of Lincoln and Garfield each the 
.sum of $5,000. The gentleman is correct in his statement, but I asvsert 
that in this action of the last Congress he can find no precedent for 
the passage of this bill, Lincoln and Garfield died in office. They 
fell at their post of duty. Had the American Congress neglected or 
refused to acknowledge in some such way the debt of gratitude it owed 
Abraham Lincoln and James A. Garfield it would have justly mer¬ 
ited the condemnation of every civilized nation upon the face of the 
earth. Sir, while this bill may arouse our sympathies it has not even 
the merit of private or public service, but rests as I have stated en¬ 
tirely in the fact that the claimant is the last of a noble race and the 
sole surviving descendant of one of the founders of the Republic. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of giving pensions, and liberal pen¬ 
sions, but not civil service. A civil pension is a gift to be bestowed 
at pleasure, but a military and naval pension is a debt. Pensions should 
be given as a reward and compensation for naval and military service 
rendered. A pension is a nation’s acknowledgment and recognition of 
the highest possible loyalty. It says to him who receives it: “ While 
it is true that as a citizen you owed your services and your life to your 
country, that you received a stipulated sum as pay for your labor and 
exposure, yet as an acknowledgment of my gi’atitude and an induce¬ 
ment to your fellow-countrymen to emulate your jjatriotism and lo^ml 
devotion I bestow this bounty.” 

Yes, sir; I am in favor of pensions, and this Government, with its vast 
wealth and almost unlimited resources, with its hundred and thirty 
millions surplus, can not afford to be niggardly or ungenerous. I would 
vote to-day to give every disabled Federal soldier of the late war a pen¬ 
sion, whether his disability was incurred in or since the war. These 
men have a claim upon the gratitude of this nation that can not be esti¬ 
mated in dollars and cents. It was no common struggle. The very 
life and existence of the nation was threatened. The actual individual 
enlistments during the war were 2,063,391; of this number more than 
one-half have applied or been pensioned by the Government. Nearly 
300,000 have died leaving no pensionable relatives. Why not provide 
for the remainder of these veterans ? It is now nearly twenty years 
since the close of the war, and what better use could be made of the sur¬ 
plus in the Treasury ? It would be only a partial payment for services 
and sufferings that saved the nation from absolute destruction. 

It seems to me that if my friend and colleague is sincere in his de¬ 
sire to reward those who really deserve the gratitude of their country¬ 
men, he is putting himself to unnecessary trouble in his search for a 
pensionable person. I Avant to say to him that it is no disrespect to 
the person named in the bill or to the gentleman himself who has so 
earnestly and elo(]uently m-ged its passage to say that there are thou¬ 
sands of men who fought in the Avar of the rebellion, and hundreds and 
thousands of AvidoAvs and children of men Avho fell in that struggle, Avho 
as yet receive no pensions, Avhose claims upon the gratitude of this Gov¬ 
ernment are superior to those of this claimant. 

The gentleman from New York says that Jefferson Avas the author of 
the Declaration of Independence, the father of equal rights. Grant it;. 


3 


))n’^ what equality or justice would there be in giving this claimant $2,500 
a year while you give the widows of the Union soldiers the paltry sum 
of $8 per month? This was not the equality or justice that Thomas 
Jefferson taught, or I have failed to read his life and teachings correctly. 

Mr. Chairman, I was one of the niembei's upon this side of the House 
who voted last week against the passage of what was styled as the Mexi¬ 
can war pension bill, a bill, Mr. Chairman, in my judgment not only 
wrong in principle but more objectionable than the measure under con¬ 
sideration. It was not a bill to place upon the pension-rolls of the Gov¬ 
ernment the names of the soldiers and sailors who were disabled in the 
Avar with Mexico, as that had already been done, nor was it a bill to 
place on the pension-rolls of the Government the names of the AvidoAvs 
of the men who had fallen in that Avar. They had all been pensioned. 
Such was not the object of the bill; had such been its puipose or had it 
been a measure to reward those who had actually seen military service 
and only those, it Avould have met wuth no opposition from me, on the 
contrary I should hav^e Amted for it, for I Avould not say but that the 
men Avho fought under Taylor and Scott may not liaA-^e been as braA e 
and patriotic as those who fought the battles of the Union under Grant 
and Sherman. I A oted against the passage of the bill for the reason it 
placed upon the pension-rolls of the Government the names of thou¬ 
sands of men who had seen no military services Avhatever. not even 
thirty days, while it made no proAusion for the surviving A’^eterans of the 
late war, and who had seen not days but years of the severest military 
hardships. It proposed to pension men for life Avho had neA-er shed a 
drop of blood or trod a foot of Mexican soil. I voted against the pas¬ 
sage of the bill for the reason it was legislation exclusively in the inter¬ 
est of the able-bodied Avhile it excluded the surAuving Federal soldiers 
of the war of the rebellion. 

Now, sir, if Ave are to be magnanimous let us be just. The bill Avas 
not only wrong in principle, unjust in its discrimination, but can not 
be defended upon the ground of precedent. The jAensions granted by 
the acts of 1818 and 1820 were in the nature of payments for long years 
of heroic service upon the held and in the face of the enemy, and 
limited to those in reduced circumstances. The act of 1832 had a sim¬ 
ilar object in view, and was in the nature of the performance or fnltill- 
nient of a contract for services. The recipients of the pensions granted 
by that act had trod the bloody helds of the Revolution from Lexing¬ 
ton to Yorktown. 

Mr. Chairman, there Avas another reason which compelled me to 
oppose the passage of the bill, and in referring to it I trust I may not 
be charged Avith a desire to arouse sectional feeling or awaken party 
prejudice, for I care not from Avhat section of the country the soldier 
comes if he has fought tlie battles of his country. Patriotism is the 
same the world over, but the Mexiam pension bill not only placed upon 
the pension-rolls men in comfortable circumstances, and avIio rendered 
but little if any military service whatcA^er, but it pensioned for life men 
Avho were disloyal during the late Avar, and who, after haAung been ed¬ 
ucated bj the Government and at the Government’s expense, joined 
ill a rebellion that for years carried sorroAv, suffering, and death to nearly 
eA^ery household throughout the length and breadth of this fair land. 
What nation has ever pei^sioned the men avIio betrayed and for years 
sought its destruction ? It may forgive and restore the once disloyal to 
citizenship. This, sir, it has done, and I rejoice at the mutual good 


4 


feeling that every day puts further away the recollections of the war, btit 
for this House to say that the men who fought against their country 
are as much entitled to its gratitude or to be placed upon the pension- 
rolls as those who exposed their lives to preserve the integrity of the 
Union and the honor of the flag, is the enunciation of a proposition as 
unjust as it is monstrous. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, a Avoid further and I am done. From the re¬ 
port of the United States Commissioner of Pensions, Mr. Dudley, I find 
that on the 30th day of June last there were jiending in his department 
upward ofl80,000 applications for pensions, and these applications were 
not from soldiers in good health and comfortable circumstances, but 
from men who had lost their health and limbs in the late civil war. 
Sir, what I desire to say is this, that so long as these claims are pend¬ 
ing undetermined or unadjusted I do not think I would be justified in 
voting to place the name of any able-bodied person upon the pension- 
rolls of this Government, even though that person be the sole surviving 
descendant of Thomas Jefiereon. [Applause.] 

O 


THE TARIFF 


SPEECH 


HON. STEPHEN C. MILLARD, 

OW ISTKW YORK, 


IN THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


Monday, May 5, 1884. 


WASHINGTON. 




I 


I 


. / 


I 


< 


I 




0 



4 


% 













% 


/ 


t 


j '' 





i ‘J. 






t r 


I 



t 


t «» 
^ ' 


> 




\ 





i 


L 






4 

t 



r 


I 


»l 


SPEECH 


OF 


HON. STEPHEN C. MILLARD.. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5893) to reduce import duties and 
war-tariff taxes— 

Mr. MILLARD said: 

Mr. Chairman : When the House voted to consider the bill intro¬ 
duced by the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Morrison] 
it was not my intension or desire to offer any remarks during this dis¬ 
cussion, but the debate has taken such wide range and so many argu¬ 
ments have been advanced by the friends and advocates of the measure 
which seem to me to be not only fallacious, but calculated to mislead, 

I ask the indulgence of the committee that I may state very briefly my 
obj ections to the proposed legislation. In 1882 the President appointed 
a tariff commission, composed of nine practical men, outside of politics 
and outside of Congress, to investigate and report facts and opinions 
with a view of enabling Congress to make such a revision of the tariff 
as might be found to be necessary. 

This revision was asked for not only by the commercial and manu¬ 
facturing interests of the country but by the working classes, not less 
than 80,000 laboring men sending petitions to the Forty-sixth Congress 
praying for the appointment of the commission. The commission pre¬ 
sented its report in December, 1882, and the Forty-seventh Congress 
made the revision asked for hy the passage of a bill which not only 
added to the free-list and secured important reductions upon imports, 
but did its work so well as to make any tariff tinkering at this time 
wholly unnecessary. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, why this agitation at this time, why the dis¬ 
cussion of a measure day after day which is not only conceded by its 
advocates to be imperfect and incapable of just application but in case 
it should become a law calculated to disturb, disorganize, and impair 
every industry of the country ? Has any horizontal reduction of the 
tariff or any change in the duties as established by the Forty-seventh 
Congress been asked for? Has any one of the 80,000 laboring men whe 
petitioned for the appointment of the commission demanded the pro¬ 
posed legislation? Have any of the great industries of the United 
States declared they wanted any change in the law as passed by the 
Forty-seventh Congress. As near as I can ascertain the only persons de¬ 
manding the consideration and the passage of the bill are a few free-trade 
cranks claiming to represent the Free Trade League, of the city of New 
York, but who in fact represent the Cobden Club, of London. I have 
not forgotten, sir, the large sums of money contributed in 1879 by the 
English manufacturers to aid the New York Free Trade League in its 
warfare upon our domestic manufactures. 

Mr. Chairman, there is, perhaps, no question so imperfectly under- / 
stood, yet of such vital importance to the whole people, as this matter 'O 
of the protective tariff; and while I claim to possess no superior knowl- 
edge of the subject, I do claim that the great industrial interests of the 
country—the agricultural, the commercial, and the manufacturing in- 




4 


terests—are so linked together that you can not injure the one without 
injury to the other; that you can not advance or extend the one without 
a corresponding influence upon the other. For this reason, sir, this 
should not be made a political or sectional question. 

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to a “ tariif for revenue only,” or what 
is known as British free trade. It may work well in England, where 
an able-bodied man, if he works hard, can earn $3 to $4 per week, but 
we want none of it in this country. Such a tariff is a discrimination 
against American and in favor of the half-paid and pauper labor of 
Europe. Such a system is a discrimination against our domestic and 
in favor of foreign manufactures. 

My distinguished colleague from New York says that the American 
tariff must go. Sir, he talks like an English manufacturer. This, sir, 
has been the determination of the English Government ever since the 
Colonies dissolved their connection with the mother country. From 
the earliest date England opposed the establishment of manufactories 
in the American Colonies, its object being to confine their commerce to 
the exportation of agricultural products and in return supply them with 
the products of her own manufactories. In 1817 the House of Com¬ 
mons declared that the erection of manufactories in the Colonies was 
calculated to lessen their dependence upon Great Britain. In 1831 the 
House of Commons issued an order to inquire into the affairs of the 
Colonies, charging that in certain localities in New York, New Eng¬ 
land, and Pennsylvania the people had established woolen mills, and 
in Massachusetts they had erected a paper mill. All this was regarded 
as rank treason in the eyes of the mother country. 

Horace Greeley says in his Political Economy ‘ ‘ that when the Federal 
Constitution was adopted in 1787, and it was announced that enough 
States had voted to ratify it, there were instantly great rejoicings in all 
the seaboard villages, and great processions were formed wherein the 
laboring classes appeared parading the hammer and the anvil, crying, 

‘ ‘ Protection to American industry. ’ ’ That since the war ended they 
had had free trade—the markets glutted with foreign goods and no de¬ 
mand for American labor. ‘ ‘ Protection must go, ” “ the American tariff 
must go,” says my distinguished colleague [Mr. Hewitt]; a remarka¬ 
ble declaration from the lips of the most ardent of free-traders, but more 
remarkable when coming from the distinguished statesman of NewYork, 
for if there is any one thing more than another which has made his State 
the grandest and most powerful State in the Union it is the advantages 
which her people and her varied industries have received under the oper¬ 
ation of a protective tariff. 

I will not take the time to argue the question with the gentleman. 
All I desire to say is that his declaration is against the history of the 
country under the operations of high protection. 

Henry Clay, in a speech delivered on the floor of this House in 1834, 
said 

The proposition to be maintained by our adversaries is that manufactures 
without protection will in due time spring up in the country and sustain them¬ 
selves in competition with foreign fabrics, however advanced the arts and what¬ 
ever the degree of protection may be in foreign countries. Now, I contend that this 
proposition is refuted by all experience, ancient and modern, in every country. 
If I am asked why unprotected industry should not succeed in a struggle with 
protected industry, I answer, the fact has ever been so, and that is sufficient. I 
reply that uniform experience evinces that it can not succeed in such a struggle, 
and that is sufficient. 

And again, in 1832, speaking of the protective tariff passed in 1824, 
he said: 

If I were to select any term of seven years since the adoption of the present 
Constitution which exhibited a scene of the most widespread dismay and deso- 


lation, it would be exactly that term of seven years which immediately preceded 
the tariff of 1824. 

If the term of seven years were to be selected of the greatest pros¬ 
perity which this people have enjoyed since the establishment of their 
present Constitution, it would he exactly that period of seven years 
which immediately followed the passage of the tariff of 1824. 

Mr. Chairman, free trade as a theory is all right; nothing could be 
more plausible. But when put into practice, so far as being applicable 
to the wants and conditions of our people, it is a stupendous fraud. It 
defrauds the farmer, it defrauds the manufacturer, and it defrauds the 
laboring man. Sir, it is unfortunate for those who advocate and de¬ 
mand the passage of this hill or who favor ‘ ‘ a tariff for revenue only ’ ’ 
that the facts and history of free trade in this country are against them. 
When the low-tariff acts of 1834, 1846, and 1857 were passed our mar¬ 
kets became glutted with the goods of foreign manufacture, all branches 
,of industry were paralyzed, and all kinds of labor went begging for em¬ 
ployment. But when the high-tariff acts of 1824, 1842, and 1861 were 
inaugurated all kinds of wages advanced, labor was in demand, activity 
in all branches of industry took the place of inactivity, and business 
throughout the country revived. If you ask me to give the reasons for 
such results, I answer that such was the fact, and that is sufficient. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, what is this bill that splits the great Demo¬ 
cratic party in two and occupies the attention of this House from daj 
to day and week to week, to the exclusion of more important legisla¬ 
tion ? Is it really a measure in the interest of the laboring man of the 
country ? I answer, no, for the reduction proposed makes no discrimi¬ 
nation between the luxuries and the necessaries of life. I would vote 
to put certain articles upon the free-list upon which duties are now 
exacted, and I would favor the reduction of the duties upon certain 
imports if such reduction could be made without injury to the labor¬ 
ing classes or the great industries of the country. But such is not this 
bill. Such legislation in my judgment would meet with no opposition 
from this side of the House. The bill under discussion makes a sweep¬ 
ing horizontal reduction of 20 per cent., making no discrimination 
whatever. 

Should the bill become a law, how much would it lessen the reve¬ 
nues of the country ? No advocate of the measure seems to know. Would 
the revenue under this bill prove sufficient to meet the current expenses 
of the Government? No advocate of the measure seems to know. The 
only fact concerning which there is no doubt or obscurity is that it is 
legislation in the interest of free trade. This is disclaimed by some 
who champion the measure, but I quote from the speech of the father 
of the bill [Mr. Morkison], delivered upon this floor on the 15th of last 
month, in which he stated that his bill was but the advance toward 
and a promise of a more complete revenue reform. Mr. Chairman, the 
current expenditures of the Government for the year ending June 30, 
1883, were $265,408,137; of this amount $59,160,131 was paid to meet 
the accruing interest upon the nation’s debt and $66,012,574 was paid 
out in pensions to the soldiers. 

Sir, the debt must and will be paid to the last dollar, interest and 
principal; and not less sacred is the nation’s obligation to its Union 
defenders. The pensions must be continued. Under our present sys¬ 
tem of tariff sufficient revenue is realized from the duties on imports 
and the internal-revenue taxes on whisky and tobacco to meet all these 
obligations. Not a dollar direct tax is levied upon the people. Free 
trade means direct taxation; it means that the farmer,the laboring man, 
the mechanic,and the manufacturer shall be subjected to direct taxation. 


6 


and that they and their accumnlations shall pay the national debt, the- 
soldiers’ pensions, and the expenditures of the Government, instead of a 
policy which now requires these obligations to he paid by duties on for¬ 
eign imiwrtations and the internal-revenue system, the taxes on dis¬ 
tilled spiiits, fermented liquors, and tobacco. 

Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of a protective tariff for the reason it 
protects the farmer and all the great agricultural interests of the coimtry. 
This is not only true of the New England farmer, but the wool and 
grain producers of the West, the cotton-gi'owers of the South. There 
is not a single agricultural interest in the country that is not more pros¬ 
perous under a high than a low tariff. It protects them by providing 
a home market. What would the farms be worth without the manu¬ 
facturer? It is a mistaken idea that the American farmer is depend¬ 
ent upon a foreign market, or that Europe has to come to America for 
her supplies. As has been stated, 90 per cent, of all the agricultural 
products of the United States are consumed at home; that while the, 
total value of our agricultural products reached in 1880 the enormous 
sum of $3,600,000,000, the agricultural exports, all told, did not ex- 
cee<l in value $500,000,000. The Western farmer no longer leaves his 
crop in the field unharvested or sells forty bushels of wheat for a pair 
of lx)Ots. Such was his actual condition prior to the revision of the 
tariff in 1824. 

The distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mills] in his very 
able argument—and to my mind the most subtle and ingenious that has 
been made in favor of the bill during this discussion—attempts to meet 
this question. He told you that between 1850 and 1860 we had a low 
tariff and from 1860 to 1880 we had a high tariff. He endeavored to 
give this House the relative increase in the wealth of our domestic 
manufactures; but, sir, he forgot to give us the relative increase in the 
agricultural products of the country during those years. Now, Mr. 
Chairman, I desire to call the attention of the House to the increase of 
our agricultural products from 1860 to 1880, a period of twenty years, 
and under a high protective tariff, as has been stated. From the official 
reports I find that from 1860 to 1880 there was an increase in the acre¬ 
age in farms from 407,000,000 to 536,000,000, an increase in the value of 
farms from $6,645,000,000 to $10,197,096,770, and that the total value 
of agricultural products in 1880 was $3,600,000,000. 

Mr. Chairman, I have repeatedly heard it stated during this discus¬ 
sion that this legislation was in the interest of the laboring classes, that 
European labor was as well paid as in the United States. Gentlemen, 
this sort of talk may do here, but do not talk it to the laboring men 
themselves. They know better. If all kinds and classes of labor is 
not better paid, better fed, better clothed, and better housed in the 
United States than in Europe, will the advocates of a “ tariff for reve¬ 
nue only ’ ’ explain why for the past fifty years there has been a con¬ 
stant stream of immigration from nearly all of the European countries, 
and at this time more from free-trade England than any other country? 
From this source the United States has acquired much of its power and 
greatness, for it is the labor of the country that makes the nation. 
During the past sixty years the total of this immigration is greater than 
the entire population of Scotland and Ireland combined, and nearly 
one-half the present population of England. Between 1820 and June 30, 
1880, the aggregate of those who came from Europe to establish homes 
in this country was 11,597,181; between 1820 and 1879, 9,698,098. 

From Ireland came 3,065,761, Scotland 159,547, Wales 17,893, Ger¬ 
many 3,002,092, Italy 70,181, France 313,716, Sweden and Norway 
306,092, S^vitzerland 83,709, Russia 53,147, Austria and Hungary 


7 


‘65,588. Between 1820 and 1880 Ireland seems to have taken the lead. 
"Why Ireland, unless it has enjoyed absolute free trade with the most 
powerful nation on earth for many years, and for what came these mill¬ 
ions of men and w^omen to America unless to better their condition ? No 
language can describe the condition of the Irish peasant and the men 
and women who fill the English manufactories. The most menial serv¬ 
ant in this country enjoys a paradise compared with their condition. 

The British Almanac for 1881 states that but 59 per cent, of the 
Irish laborers eat meat, and these but five ounces per week. From the 
-State Department we find that the average wages of the farm laborer 
in England without board is $3.60 per week, Scotland $4.25. A good 
bricklayer in England can earn in a week, if he works industriously 
-and attends closely to his business, $7.60; in Scotland, $7.25; in New 
York, $12.50; and in Chicago, $11.50. A mason in England, if he is 
skilled and fully understands his trade, can earn per day from 50 to 72 
cents; carpenters, from 71 to 75 cents; blacksmiths, from 67 to 80 cents. 

The report of the Tariff Commission gives the following as the wages 
paid in England and Pittsburgh for the manufacture of iron: 



England. 

Pittsburgh. 

Puddling, per ton. 

$1 94 
29 

S5 50 

•Shingling, per ton. 

77 

Rolling and puddling mill, per ton. 

29 

68f 
4 80 

Rolling and heating, per ton. 

1 80 

Common laborer. 

56 

1 30 



In England the woolen manufacturer pays his operator an average of 
$4.50 per week; Massachusetts and Connecticut, $13.43. Our protective 
tariff increases the wages of the workman. In proportion to the duty 
imposed his pay is increased, and no one so clearly understands this as 
he who has worked in the mills and manufactories of foreign nations. 

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this measure because it is hostile to 
our domestic and in the interest of foreign manufactures; and this is a 
matter quite as important to thd South and the great West as the East. 
The New England farmer has prospered because he has had the manu- 
feoturer at his door providing him with a market for all of his prod¬ 
ucts. It is an old saying, but none the less true, that the farmer needs 
the mechanic to consume his surplus of provisions, and the mechanic 
needs the farmer to use his surplus of fabrics. Alexander H. Stephens, 
speaking of the future of his State, said that cotton could be made into 
■cloth and thread more cheaply in Georgia than in Massachusetts, and 
that the future of his people was great and hopeful in prospect if they 
would be true to themselves in working out their own high destiny. 

We have heard a good deal during this discussion about England be¬ 
ing the manufacturer of the world. Is it at all surprising that the 
American can not compete with the English manufacturer ? The Eng¬ 
lish manufactories are the growth of six hundred years, and for more 
than four hundred years they maintained a high protective system. 
Now, why can not the cotton, woolen, andiron industries of the United 
States compete with England? Simply because wages in this country 
are 50 per cent, higher than in England; and you attempt to reduce 
them to the level of the pauper labor of Europe and you would bring 
about a commercial revolution. This is not a question whether wamay 
have free salt or a slight reduction in duties upon imports. It is a 
square issue between English free trade on the one hand and American 
protection on the “Other. 


I 















8 


\ 


Pass this bill, and you would paralyze nearly every great manufact¬ 
uring industry in the country. I have repeatedly heard it stated dur¬ 
ing this discussion that our manufacturers were standing in their own 
light. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mills] whose speech I have 
heretofore rel'erred to stated that the official records show that our man¬ 
ufacturers were more prosperous between 1846 and 1860 than they have 
ever been since. The history of those years show directly the contrary, 
or I do not read it correctly. In 1850 the total value of the manufact- 
uredproductsof the United States was$l,019,106,616; inl860, $1,885,- 
861,676; in 1870, $3,432,415,933; in 1880, $5,369,579,191. The total 
value of the exports of the products of manufactures in 1860 was $45,- 
658,873; in 1882, $103,132,481; in 1883, $111,890,101. Take the woolen 
industry of the United States. In 1850 the capital emploved was $28,- 
118,650; in 1860, $42,849,932; in 1870, $132,382,319, and in 1880, $159,- 
069,270, nearly six times the amount of capital invested in 1850. The 
total value of the woolen industries in the United States in 1850 was 
$49,726,882; in 1860, $80,734,606; in 1870, $217,668,826, and in 1880, 
$267,182,914, a sum nearly six times that of 1850, and more than three 
times that of 1860. What is true of the woolen interests is equally 
true of the silk industry in the United States. Total value of silk^ 
manufactured in the United States in 1850 was $1,809,476; in 1860, 
$6,607,771; in 1870, $12,210,062; but in 1880 it reached the enormous- 
sum of $40,500,000, exceeding the total value of the silk product of 
Great Britain by upward of $5,000,000. 

The undisputed facts are that everywhere protected manufactures are 
in a healthy and vigorous condition; unprotected manufactures sickly, 
feeble, and precarious. The condition of Canada is a fair illustration 
of what a low tariff or no tariff at all will do. Until within the last 
few years she has had no protection; consequently no great manufact¬ 
uring industries. Agricultural lands on the American side of the line 
are at least 50 per cent, higher than on the Canada side. I have re¬ 
ferred to Ireland. She has always had perfectly free trade with the 
richest manufacturing nation in the world. Turkey is another nation 
where the customs are low. Let the United States manufacture for 
itself, do its own manukicturing, and England will not long be the 
manufacturer of the world. A nation that does its own manufacturing 
and produces its own food creates two markets instead of one. 

;Mr. Chairman, I have occupied more time than I intended. My 
only apology is the great and vital importance of the question under 
consideration. As I stated at the outset of my remarks, it is not a bill 
in the interest of the laboring classes or any of the great industries of 
the country. They do not want it. They have not asked for it. On 
the contrary, they have entered their solemn protests against it. In 
the language of the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
Eaton], it is a bad bill, and the people will have nothing to do with 
it. God forbid that the wages of the laboring men and women of this^ 
country shall ever be put in competition with the half-starved labor of 
Europe. God forbid, sir, that the condition of the great laboring classes 
of the United States shall ever be reduced to the misery and wretched¬ 
ness of the millions that exist in England and Ireland under the opera¬ 
tion of free trade. I want to see labor ever honored and respected in 
this country, our people the most happy and prosperous of all the peoples 
of the earth, and our nation the grandest the sun shines upon. It is 
for this, sir, that I oppose the passage of this bill and all attempts to- 
establish free trade in the United States. 


O 




THE TARIFF. 


SPEECH 


H0]^[. JAMES F. MILLER, 

aw tbxalS, 


IN THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


Monday, May 5, 1884. 


WASHINGTON. 

1884. 













( 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON. JAMES F. MILLER. 


( * 


The House being in Committee of the Whole Houseon the state of theUnion, 
and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5893) to reduce import duties and 
war-tarift’ taxes— 


Mr. MILLER, of Texas, said; 

Mr. Chairman : In our Constitution the jurisdiction and duties of all 
the departments of the Government are defined and limited. The power 
of each separate branch or department is limited to the expressed grants 
of power contained in it, or to those acts necessary to carry out powers 
expressly granted. By its terms all power not expressly granted to the 
General Government are reserved to the States or the people. This lim¬ 
itation is contained in the tenth amendment to the Constitution, which 
reads as follows; 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohib¬ 
ited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people. 

In connection with this, and as showing the design of the framers of 
our organic law to limit the powers of the General Government, I read 
the ninth amendment to the Constitution, as follows; 

The.enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to 
deny or disparage others retained by the people. 

As I construe this language it limits the power of Congress, as well as 
the executive and judicial departments of the Government, to certain 
and well-defined subjects of legislation, and limits its right to legislate 
upon the subjects committed to it to defined objects and purposes. I 
do not believe that under a proper construction of the Constitution Con¬ 
gress has unlimited power of legislation upon any subject unless power 
to do so is given it without restriction. Its powers are limited in legis¬ 
lating upon any subject by the expression of the purpose and object to 
be accomplished. 

The framers of our organic law did not entertain the idea that Con¬ 
gress could by law create wealth and make itself self-supporting. They 
knew that in the carrying out of the powers committed to the General 
Government expenses would be incurred, and the money to pay these 
expenses was to be collected from the people who participated in the 
benefits it secured. And this power to raise money is contained in the 
eighth section of the first article; 

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and 
excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense an«l general wel¬ 
fare of the United States; but duties,imposts and excises shall be uniform 
throughout the United States. 









T 




4 


The terms of this grant of power to raise money define and limit the 
purposes for which it is to be raised to three, namely : first, to pay the 
debt; second, to provide for the common defense ; and third, the general 
welfare of the United States. As to the two first there is little room to 
enlarge them by construction; their meaning is plain and certain. In 
other sections of the Constitution the Federal Government is expressly 
given authority to incur debt, to declare war, to suppress insurrection, 
and to defend the country against foreign invasion. So these two phrases 
only give the Congress the power to raise money to meet the expenses 
necessarily incident to the carrying out of powers expressly granted by 
other sections of the Constitution, and are not independent grants of a 
new power. But when w'e come to the third clause, the general wel¬ 
fare, we are met by the claim that this is a new and independent grant 
of power, not limited to the carrying out of the other powers granted. 
To this doctrine I can not agree, and particularly to that broad and most 
dangerous construction of these words which claims that they give to 
to the Congress general powder to raise money for any purpose that it 
may for the time consider necessary to the special welfare of particular 
sections or particular industries. 

It is Ifom this simple phrase that gentlemen upon the other side of 
the House base their claim that Congress has the constitutional right 
to levy a tribute upon the general public for the benefit of a particular 
class. It is under this clause that they claim the authority to lay im¬ 
port duties, in order to protect and build up our “infant industries,’’ 
some of them now more than a century old, yet as clamorously ask¬ 
ing for protection as they did in the days of Washington and Jefferson. 
Each and every species of class legislation, every grant of a monopoly 
to individuals or corporations, every dollar of the people’s money that 
has been taken directly or indirectly for the benefit of the few and at 
the expense of the many, has been justified undor this “general-wel¬ 
fare ’ ’ clause of the Constitution. 

Is it for the ‘ ‘ general welfare ’ ’ that we are asked to continue a 
system of protective duties, thereby piling up in our Treasury $100,- 
000,000 annually for which we have no use, and which is over and 
above all the necessities of a sinking fund and the healthful pay¬ 
ment of our public debt as it matures? Is it for the general welfare 
that we are asked to continue to exclude a healthy and legitimate com¬ 
petition from our commerce, and compel our people to pay a tribute 
averaging 43 per cent, above the real market price to certain favored 
interests by which fabulous fortunes are being more rapidly accumu¬ 
lated than ever before known in the world’s history ? Is it for the gen¬ 
eral welfare that the workingman is compelled to pay an American 
manufacturer $20 for a serge overcoat worth in Liverpool eight and 
one-half dollars ? Is it for the general welfare that the poor man has 
to pay $3 for the wool hat which he can import at $1.50, and in about 
the same proportion for anything he wears? Is it for the general wel¬ 
fare that when the poor man sets about to build his humble cottage to 
shelter his wife and children, he must pay a royalty of 100 per cent, 
upon his nails, 18 per cent, upon his lumber, 60 per cent, upon his 
window-glass, 41 per cent, upon his linseed-oil, 54 per cent, upon his 
white lead, 25 per cent, ujwn his wall-paper and slate, and 14 per cent, 
upon his shingles, when little or none of these percentages and extra 
costs go to the support of his Government? For it is only when con¬ 
sumption exceeds the home supply that the Government gets the ben- 


5 


efit of the duty laid by the tariff act. So long as the home manufact¬ 
urer can supply the home demand every retail dealer in his goods is 
a collector for him of these royalties laid upon consumption, and it is 
only when the foreign article comes into our custom-houses that the 
Government official gets the duty for Government use. All the rest goes 
to build up the splendid private fortunes of the protected industries. 

But we are told by gentlemen on the other side of the House that the 
benefit to the general public from these protected industries consists 
in the fact that it enables them to pay better wages to their operatives 
and preserves American labor from competition with foreign labor. If 
this were true, which I shall hereafter try to show is not the fact, yet 
it could not be j ustified under the general-welfare clause, because, ac¬ 
cording to our last census, our total laboring population was 17,392,000 
and of these only 2,739,000 were engaged in these protected pursuits; 
therefore it can not be for the “general welfare” that over 14,000,000 
of laboring men are oppressed for the benefit of less than 3,000,000. 

But these gentlemen say that these protected laborers are consumers 
of agricultural products and build up a home market for our farmers 
and give a better price for our agricultural products, and thus enable 
us to regulate the price of our agricultural products by a home market. 
In relation to that I read the statement made by Mr. Shearman before 
the Committee on Ways and Means: _ 

The census shows that the entire products of American agriculture in 1880, in¬ 
eluding all that was consumed by the agriculturists themselves, was valued at 
•$2,213,402,000; agricultural products exported in same year, $683,000,000; amount 
consumed at home, $1,530,402,000. 

The total working population was 17,392,000, of which there were : 


Farmers and farm laborers. 7,670,000 

Manufacturers, mechanics, and manufacturing workmen. 2,739,000 

Others. 6,983,000 


Total;. 17,392,900 


Now, as one man eats about as much as another (especially if the first is a 
farmer), it is perfectly fair to assume that the consumption of agricultural prod¬ 
ucts should be divided equally among all these persons; and, as there are at 
least as many persons to a family among farmers as among manufacturing 
w'orkmen, it is not necessary to make any separate computation as to the fam¬ 
ilies supported by the 17,392,000 working population. The agricultural produce 
of the country was, therefore, disposed of as follows: 


Farmers consume of their own products. $<373,372,000 

Manufacturers and mechanics of all kinds. 244,863,000 

Other Americans. 612,156, (XX) 

The foreign market. 683,011 ,000 


Total. 2,213,402,000 


Thus it appears that the much despised foreign market is worth neaxdy three 
times as much to the American farmer as all the manufacturing classes put to¬ 
gether. But this is far from being the end of the matter. Deducting from the 
2,7(X),0(X) persons reckoned as the manufacturing classes all the flour-makers, 
provision-packers, carpenters and builders, with hundreds of thousands more 
who are engaged in those kinds of manufacturing which never can be benefited 
by the protective system (except in the same way that it is supposed to benefit 
farmers, namely, by providing them custom among protected industries), it is 
an extravagant estimate to assume that there are as many as 7(X),(XX) persons em¬ 
ployed in those branches of manufacturing which can possibly derive any benefit 
from a tariff’. As this number amounts to only a trifle more than 4 per cent, of 
the whole working population, it follows that the entire class of protected manu¬ 
facturers and mechanics furnished a market in 1880 for less than $62,000,000 of 
agricultural produce, while the much contemned foreigners provided a market 
for $683,(XX),000, or more than eleven times as much as all the protected classes 
put together. 

In order to maintain this paltry market for $62,tX)0,000 of his produce, the Ameri¬ 
can farmer submits to an annual taxation which draws from the country not less 













than $100,000,000 in excess of anything which honest government requires, with 
an additional taxation of from $500,000,000 to $700,000,000 per annum in the ex¬ 
cessive price of domestic manufactures, exacted for the sole purpose of enabling 
the manufacturer to pay to his workmen the same wages as the farmer does. 
Taking the lowest estimate of the amount thus annually paid, and of the pro¬ 
portion which farmers pay out of the whole, the annual expense to the farmers 
themselves of maintaining this market for $62,000,000 is not less than $250,000,000. 

The price of agricultural products are in fact, as we all know, regu¬ 
lated by the foreign demand for our surplus. 

It was necessary to show these absurdities of this claim of authority 
for a protective tariff in order to show what I think is the correct con¬ 
struction of the clause of the Constitution now under consideration. 
Those ()f us who deny the correctness of this latitudinarian construction 
of this Constitution liold that under the term ‘‘general welfare,” 
properly construed, there was no substantive grant of independent 
power to raise monej'^ for any purpose, but that those words only grant 
power to raise money for the general welfare as defined and limited by 
all the other clauses in the Constitution. I hold that all and the only 
general welfare for which the Congress has the right to raise money is 
defined in other sections of the Constitution by express grants of power, 
just as the clauses to pay the debts and provide for the common defense 
are given powers in other sections. 

In other words, the ‘‘general welfare” about which the Congress is 
given power to raise money is set out in the Constitution itself and 
limited to these and these only. There may be and are unquestionably a 
great many things absolutely essential to the general welfare which are 
not and never have been claimed as subjects of Federal legislation, such as 
the protection of life and property in the States and the due and jiroper 
administration of State laws. If Congress has the general power to 
legislate for the general welfiire, it can raise money to pay the debts of 
the cities, counties, and States of the Union. It can raise money to 
build churches, to establish factories, schools, newspapers, art galleries, 
in the States as it now does in the District of Columbia. It seems to 
me, therefore, absolutely essential that the interpretation of this clause 
should not in any case be extended beyond the raising of money to 
carry out the powers granted in other sections of the Constitution, 
which define and limit the general welfare, about which Congress may 
legislate. 

Again, while this clause has not, solar as I know, and in the nature 
of things can not be, the subject of judicial interpretation, yet cases 
arising under State laws have been the subject of judicial determina¬ 
tion by our highest courts, and I shall briefly refer to a few of these as 
’ wing how this clause would also be construed. 



The Supreme Court of the United States in tlie case of The Citizens’ 
Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland vs. The City of Topeka (20 
Wallace, R., 655), the question being the constitutionality of a law au¬ 
thorizing cities and towns to tax themselves in aid of manufactories, 
held (I quote from the syllabus of the opinion): 


^ Among the limitations of the right to tax is that it can only be used in aid of 


\ a public object, an object which is within the purposes for which governments 
are established. It can not therefore be exercised in aid of enterprises strictly 
private or for the benefit of individuals, though in a collateral or remote way 
the local public may be benefited thereby. 


Mr. Webster defines a tax as a rate or sum of money assessed upon the 
person or property of a citizen for the use of the State. 

Oln Northern Liberties vs. St. John’s Church (13 Pennsylvania State 



i 


Reports, 104) Mr. Justice Coulter, in delivfc. ing the opinion of the court, 
said: 

I think the common mind has everywhere taken in the understanding that 
taxes are a public imposition levied by the government for the purpose of car¬ 
rying on the government in all its machinery and operations; that they are im¬ 
posed for a public purpose. 


it be said that duties levied upon imports to build up individual 
: enterprise, to encourage and foster the particular industries of a few at 
the expense of the many, comes within these definitions of a tax ? An 
import duty is a tax, and according to these learned and distinguished 
authorities it must be levied for a governmental purpose, and not to 
foster private enterprise, even though the public may remotely receive a 
^.^enefit thereby. 

^.'^ven if the terms “general welfare” are given the broadest significa- 
^ tion, yet they can not be made broad enough to cover a protective tariff 
I as defined by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Russell], “Pro¬ 
tection for the sake of protection. ’ ’ It can not be for the ‘ ‘ general wel¬ 
fare” that the industries of the few are builded up at the expense of 
the consuming millions. It can not be for the ‘ ‘ general welfare ’ ’ that 
capital is protected and given illegitimate profits at tbe expense of the 
great body of the people who live by their daily labor. It can not be 
for the general welfare that by the operation of these tariff laws the 
rich are made richer day by day and the poor grow poorer as the years 
roll on. It can not be for the general welfare that production is limited 
to the supply of an exclusive market, and when a surplus is made that 
work stops, wages cease, and the idle workman becomes a tramp in the 
land. The great majority of our people are of that class who day by 
day earn wages to support themselves and their families, and every dis¬ 
criminating duty upon articles of their daily consumption but makes 
their burden harder to bear and their lives more and more cheerless 
and hopeless. 

farmer and his help must toil on from early morning until late 
' at night, with no shelter from the summer’s sun or winter’s rain, and 
at last he must trust to the seasons and the good providence of the Al¬ 
mighty for his harvests. And yet no law protects him from competition 
with the world; his surplus products must be sold for what they will 
bring; there is no plea made to give him a market from which all com¬ 
petition is excluded. He can not shorten hours of work or limit his pro¬ 
duction; if he does, his children will go unclothed and unfed. But it 
is not in fact true that these protected industries pay any higher wages 
than is paid by unprotected industries in proportion to hours of work, 
skill, and capacity for prochiction. 

It is true that American artisans produce more in a given time than 
most other nations. It is true that American skilled labor is the best 
and most valuable 'skilled labor, and therefore most profitable to the 
employer; but it is not true that protection adds to his wages or gives 
him any better living. 

It has been argued upon this floor that protection equalized itself 
because of the fact that if A used the articles made by B under pro¬ 


tection he paid B a bonus for making it; but on the other hand B used 
in return articles made by A and paid him back the bonus in that way. 
In the mean time what becomes of the workmen who made these ar¬ 
ticles ajid the balance of the great body of consumers of the articles 
made by A and B ? No equalizing processes come to them to jeturn the 


8 


bonus they have paid to A and to B; and thus in the name of the revenue 
A and B gather taxes into their private coffers and grow richer and 
richer, while the unprotected public grows poorer and poorer by reason 
of these illegal exactions. 

The universal law is that the price of labor is regulated by the inex¬ 
orable law of supply and demand. When there is little to be done and 
many seeking work labor will be at starvation prices, while on the other 
hand when there is much to be done and labor is scarce wages will be 
high. No amount of legislation, no tariff can be made so high as to 
change this law; both individuals and corporations do and will continue 
to act upon this law until the millennial dawn. They get the cheapest 
labor that answers their purpose to be had in the market; and when, 
as with us, there is free intercourse between nations and peoples labor, 
like gold and commodities, will be imported and exported as is profita¬ 
ble to employers and employed. Labor is not protected. There is no 
law upon our statute-books which prohibits the foreign artisan or skilled 
laborer from coming to this country and engaging in any of these pro¬ 
tected industries. There is no law to prevent the protected manufact¬ 
urer from employing foreign operatives if they are willing to come here. 

If wages were so much better here, as has been intimated on this 
floor, than in Europe, why is it that these foreign laborers do not come 
flocking here to better their condition? As a fact it is stated that for¬ 
eign skilled artisans have come here and have gone again because the 
wages they had in Europe were really better than their wages here in 
its power to purchase comfort for their families. The workingman has 
no assurance that the next steamer from Europe will not bring a com¬ 
petitor for his place, and perhaps competition maybe so sharp as to re¬ 
duce the price of his labor, while protection takes nothing oft* the price 
of his living by reason of all this. His wages may be reduced by com¬ 
petition from abroad, but the price of his living can not be because of 
protection. 

/^"^rotection, if it protects at all, does it by increasing the market price 
of protected articles, and thus increases the cost of those articles to the 
consumer. Probably 40,000,000 of the people of the United States 
are absolutely dependent upon the toil of muscle and brain of those 
who earn their living by the sweat of their brow. To them protection 
comes in the guise of giving them wages for work or a market for the 
fruits of their labor, while in fact it exacts from them 43 per cent, of 
their earnings, not to support their Government, but to build up the 
fortune of more favored citizens. To the workingman it means a re¬ 
duction in the purchasing power of his wages; it means a decrease in 
his ability to support himself and his family, a decrease in his ability 
to lay up anything out of his earnings for old age and sickness or other 
misfortune; it means to him less of ability to educate his children and 
make them useful citizens. 

In the beginning of our Government we were asked to protect our 
“infant industries ” for just a little while and we will stand alone, and 
so it has gone on for a century, and still comes the cry, give us ten more 
years of protection and we can stand alone. One gentleman said Eng¬ 
land had six hundred years of protection to develoi) her industries, and 
so it goes on; like Oliver Twist, they still cry for more. 

These protected industries are selfish as other people are, and desire 
to make all the profit they can with as little outlay as possible, and 
just so long as Congress will continue to give them a market for their 




■wares, from which all real competition is excluded, they will continue 
to ask it. 

Lf it be true, and I think it is, that where territory is given from 
which real competition is excluded, manufacturers having the privilege 
of this exclusive market will limit their j)roduction to the amount 
necessary to profitably supply this market and no more. In addition 
to this, protective tariffs increase the cost of most manufactures so as 
to prevent them from successful competition in the open markets of 
the world, and thus it diminishes the quantity of production, the de¬ 
mand for labor, and thereby the wages of labor. No one will deny that 
our skilled labor, our factory labor, is as good as any in the world, that 
our capacity for machinery is equal or better than any, and yet we are 
far behind in the amount and value of our manufacturing products ex¬ 
ported to a market, and for the same reason that France and Germany 
are behind England and ahead of us. To show this, I refer to the state¬ 
ment prepared by Mr. Jacob Schoenhoflf for the Committee on Ways 
and Means, as follows: 

I take Germany and France, therefore, as examples. English wages are fully 
50 per cent, above those of Germany, and on the average at least 30 per cent, 
above those of France. Besides, the English working week is one of fifty-six 
hours, whUe that of Germany is from sixty-six to seventy-two (often seventy- 
eight) hours, and that of France of seventy-two hours. Yet they all guard 
themselves by protective tariffs, not against their weaker rivals, but against the 
very country which pays the highest wages and has the shortest hours. 

In cotton goods the imports and exports are : 


Countries. 

Imports. 

Exports. 

England. 

$12,000,000 

$380,000,000 
23,000,000 
15,000,000 

Germany (not containing yarns). 

France (not containing yarns). 

19,000,000 



England’s position in the commerce of the world in cotton goods is as follows : 
Wages—From one-half to one-third higher than in any other European states. 
Weekly hours—Fifty-six, against sixty-six and seventy-two on the continent. 

English exports in cotton goods and yarns. $380,000,000 

Germany exports in cotton goods and yarns. $21,000,000 

Germany exports in hosiery, &c. 10,000,000 

France exports in cotton goods and yarns. 19,000,000 

United States exports in cotton goods. 13,000,000 

Holland exports in cotton goods and yarns. 11,000,000 

Belgium exports in cotton goods. 5,500,000 

Switzerland exports in cotton goods and yarns. 10,000,000 


90,000,000 

Excess of English exports in cottons over the rest of the world. 290,000,000 

If we deduct the exports of yarns, because they are more than balanced by 
imports from England—nineteen millions—then we have $71,000,000against $380,- 
000,000. This is a striking illustration of the fajlacy of the “ pauper-labor theory” 
in the tariff. 

f Our factories are not worked to more than half their capacity. Our 
' mines and forges are over half the time idle, to avoid overproduc¬ 
tion, because we do not produce for the world’s markets, but only for 
our own. The laborer who is idle has to feed and clothe his family, 
just as if he was working at fair wages. His life and his strength, 
which are his capital, are wasting away day by day without profit to 
him, while the employer’s capital remains intact. He only loses inter¬ 
est by its lying idle, when but for protection our manufacturers would 





















10 


have to depend upon the markets of the world and sell in competition 
with the world; they would run their machinery to the full capacity, 
they would work full time, make larger quantities of their fabrics at a 
smaller profit, in order to realize the income which they now get from 
limited production, and this would give more employment to labor, 
increase the demand for it, and thus increase wages. 

It is a grand mistake to suppose that the cheapest labor is the most 
profitable. On the contrary, skilled labor which produces most in a 
given time gets the best price and is the most profitable to employers. 
Pauper labor and cheap labor is the worst labor and least profitable; it 
does not and can not compete with skilled or high-priced labor, as has 
been so fully shown in statements make upon this floor that it is un¬ 
necessary for me to repeat them. 

Nor is it true, as seems to be assumed upon the other side in this 
debate, that the price of labor is governed by either the price of or 
profit upon the article made, but is governed, as I have stated before, 
by the law of supply and demand. 

As an e vidence of this I am told that in certain steel-rail works in this 
country when the price of steel rails was $56 per ton wages for cer¬ 
tain laborers were $2 per day. Afterward the price of steel rails was 
reduced to $40 per ton, but the wages of these same workmen had ad¬ 
vanced to $3 per day. 

The protective system is not fair to our agricultural population. The 
surplus of agricultural production is of a character that it can not be 
long held from market. If more is made than will supply home con¬ 
sumption it must be exported and sold for whatever it will bring, and 
the price of the whole crop is regulated by the foreign demand. The 
prices of the cotton, corn, hog product, beef, &c., are regulated really 
by the foreign market, where it has to compete with the productions of 
the world. The wheat crop in India has reduced the price of wheat in 
Chicago to 80 cents per bushel. The cotton crop of Egypt regulates in 
a great measure the price of cotton in New York, because they come in 
competition in the world’s markets. 

/ On the other hand, the agriculturist, when he comes to purchase sup¬ 
plies, must go into a market from which all reasonable comi^etition is 
excluded. If he desires to buy English goods he has to pay freight and 
tariff in addition to original cost, which practically compels him to pur¬ 
chase Irom the American manufacturer at a much larger price than he 
would have to pay in an open market. Thus he is compelled to sell his 
produce in the cheapest market, because he competes with all the world, 
and to buy his supplies in the most expensive one, beciiuse competition 
is excluded. And it has only been that our farmers have been able to 
sustain themselves in this unequal contest by reason of their energy and 
in^stry and the natural fertility of our soil. 

'"If the principle of protection is correct, then the Chinese were states¬ 
men and philosophers when they built their wall to prevent communica- 
Jbion with the world. Statutes levying taxes andimports justaseflfect- 
’ually exclude the world’s productions from our country as did the Chinese 
wall exclude them from China. Legal walls and statutory prohibitions' 
are more powerful than walls of stone and mortar to keep out commerce. , 

We have heard much of the decadence of American shipping on the 
floor ^of this House, and had many touching appeals to our patriotism to 
relieve our shipping industries, to build up our Navy and our mer¬ 
chant marine, from the other side of this House, and yet when we 



11 


have clearly pointed out to them the cause of this to be excessive tariff 
imports they affect not to believe it. 

In the literary bureaus for the diffusion of high-tariff ideas, which 
we call Departments, among the many arguments printed for circula¬ 
tion at the expense of the Government I find the following statement 
from Mr. Consul Craw^ford in reference to the eftects of the protective 
policy in Canada upon its shipping interest: 

EFFECTS OF THE PROTECTIVE POLICY, 

Previous to the adoption of the national policy Canada was almost entirely an 
agricultural country. The surplus capital sought an investment, and in this, as 
in all other countries, it sought that which would pay the greatest percentage of 
profits. In the absence of protection manufacturing industries offered no in¬ 
ducements. Manufactured goods were furnished by England and the United 
States at prices with which she could not compete. 

The Dominion Government followed the example of England in regard to 
trade and also the policy of granting subsidies to aid in building up and main¬ 
taining her commerce. She held out such inducements to capital that the sur¬ 
plus wealth was largely invested in ships and shipping until she stands fourth in 
rank of commercial nations. 

The adoption of the national protective policy in 1878 has had the tendency to 
turn capital into other channels. Under the fostering care of protection manu¬ 
factures sprang up all over the Dominion, immense profits Avere realized, and 
the manufacturing industries are fast absorbing the surplus capital of the coun¬ 
try and draAving large amounts from the outside AAmrld. The result of this can 
not be othei'Avise than (in spite of subsidies) the decline of her commerce; less 
numbers of A'essels Avill be built, and the same complaint that is made in the 
United States Avill be heard. 

The tonnage of vessels built, registered, and entei'ed iiiAvards and outwards, 
inclusive of coasting A'essels, in 1883isasfolloAA'^s: Tonnage built, 73,576; tonnage 
registered, 78,229 ;• tonnage entered iiiAA'ards and outAA'ards, 13,770,735. The quan¬ 
tity of freight handled by the last-named vessels Avas 3,971,393 tons’ AA’eight, and 
number of creAA'S, 537,668. 

Of these ves.sels Avhich entered the Dominion ports 2,680bore the United States 
flag and 7,305 the British flag; 635 Avere NorAA'egian and Swedish, 46 Avere F'rench, 
and the remainder, 10,781, AAmre distributed among other nationalities. Number 
of sailing vessels 8,138, and of steamers 2,593. 

The number of vessels employed in the coasting trade of Canada, as ^own by 
the arriA'als in port, is 38,244, of Avhich 38,085 are British and 158 foreign. 

The total tonnage is 8,056,736, and creAvs numbered 369,524. Of these A'essels 
17,782 AA^ere steamers and 20,462 sailing A^essels. 

Ships, old or neAv,sold toother countries numbered 44; tonnage, 23,896; value, 
^06,538. 

From this statement it will be seen that in Canada as in this country 
like causes produce like effects. Up to 1878 Canada, small in popula¬ 
tion and wealth, bad become fourth in the nations in the amount of 
her tonnage. Yet since she adopted a protective tariff, in 1878, she is 
rapidly losing her merchant marine, just as we under a revenue tariff 
had a merchant marine and a gallant navy. Now, after twenty years, 
we have no sailors and no ships to carry our merchandise, and no men- 
of-war to carry our admirals, commanders, and captains out to sea. 
We are only able to carry them on the pay-rolls of our naval establish¬ 
ment. We have also the pleasure of knowing that we have John Roach 
& Co.; that Ave have had a Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Robeson, and 
that some hundreds of millions of dollars have been appropriated to 
build war vessels with no results to show for it. 

The President recommends a reduction in the revenues so that Ave may 
not take from the people more money than is necessary for governmental 
purposes. Gentlemen on the Republican side of the House propose to 
do this by increasing the protected features of the tariff and thus 
prevent importation of goods, Avhich in effect may reduce the revenues 
of the Government, but Avill not reduce the burdens of taxation upon 


12 


the people. It will simply add more of the people’s money to the capital 
and profits of the protected industries. Some on this side of the House 
propose to repeal the internal-revenue laws; in effect to relieve the 
xjonsumers of whisky and tobacco from taxes and place the burdens of 
supporting the Government upon woolens, iron, salt, coal, and all other 
necessaries of life. People can live without whisky or tobacco, but 
can not live without clothes, iron, tools, and something to eat. 

We propose to reduce the revenue by reducing the revenues from the 
tariff one-fifth, thus reducing the burdens of the people upon the nec¬ 
essaries of life, thus reducing the cost of living to the great body of the 
people. 

the foregoing illustrations of its workings I conclude that a 
protective tariff is not for the general welfare of the United States; 
that it is not a tax laid for a public purpose, and is therefore unconsti¬ 
tutional. 


O 












S* 


■i; ■ ' 


’ ■ V-'- ^’■'' \ - 

• - Cj *^7 4 * . j ■-, 4 . * ’ 

" ^ - '-' ,v. • ‘ . r^Tf ’y . f" ■< 

■ . ' ' ■.■ -■'i -••.;■- *■ 

■5 ' . * * • 

4 4 » • 

— *1 . * . -I 




r 

4..;- 


r* . .* 

' f 


f » 


^ .♦•>-- 



<4* 


v.^r . •■ 


•- / 




'Si-r* 





• yr 



. "» i 




0 • 


V* ! *'-■ J 




Jl 4 <<• I 


». ■• 'i » 

» I J ^ 


» 

» - 


> , 


■; 'i- 

,-<i 


♦* .». 


• '.£ \ 


ir 


», 


r f # 



.V 


H 


• 4 


K* 


■ s t 



-ii 


< 

'•i* . 


\' " - * < ‘ ^ 

-> V' ' 

. -J ’-‘. 

4. -M h't 


* T 


U 


3- 


* 4* 4'i'C 


...... -J>Sf 



C',«fr4;- •• f 


-* ,1 , 


\. 



• 4V 


.1 


V. • 


4. * “J'jt T-v 

. . -■<!■.. 

. “.. "■■' . . ‘ I ■ ■. 

• . -r:, '•’'•■.:*?^-.<V ' 





► '»*i ■ , r - ■ / • ^ ^ * - 4 

•Tv^ /■'■•. fc* ' * . • . 

* • •• ■.’*• * t • ^ ^ 

* ^ s*. 

. * ' I* -*. . 4- t 




Vi-'/ * 


' i» >^1" \ 2ir 


* ^ 





fc'’ 


• 4 


•»£ 


,r-^ - . 

' »’iiw ’®-'^ ‘ ** * ' 

s-v®*.-' . ' .^^ \r; .V 

» 










1 


> 

l 

• 

. l' ^ 


« « • 

^ '• 

♦ 


'• . 

♦ 

K 

» 

* 

• 

• 

i 

: 

. ** 

» ^ 


1 

^ 'v‘4?i 

.■i-..r* 


• .'•• * *. i*’ ' 

' . 1 

A. 

0 . 

» • •j 

y'‘' 





* ^ 

4 » 

.'jf4 




■ » 


t’ *1 




•' * 

iu. % . 

•» 



. ^'V ' 

« 


( 

-: *■ A J 

«. ’ , f 


* 

« ^ 


(• .k • * 

' » 

V - 


, y 




^ ' 


* w- 


■t»kL' 


■ ■‘•'ha'- 


' *!» 





•» 


’J »' 

f 


j 


- % 




Jii tL ^. # • ^ 

?* ‘/ - ' 

L, 



> 


^ fc * ^ 

■ ■ - • 

V 


■; f 1 

'*^4. ■ 

. .Sl.« ■> 





.'•^ ' i . 




-*b. 


•* • • • 

■' ‘.>^' ■ 

•» .^'' •■ . . ^ 


!•» 

.V .k. ‘ 4 “^V 







4 »4 


* I 


t-W “s 






.^'>' •' ft'. '.' ‘* V ' ■ .\ '■ . ■• .*‘r ' '.*1 „■ : MK 

VrMl. - ' __fc . H*.**! I i. .i ..v^ 




■= V'- V '■ '*k^ ^• 

^ “ a ' ‘ 'TkCr -'- ® . ’• **'’ 

• l* V)*Cr ■. ^ . . I. . K«Eh_. 


* » * . 




j'A ■>■• &:'■. 






-r i.‘ ^ •■ * 

' S ■?* ■>,.; ■ 

.r. .- V.': -^ '.. 

‘ ■ • .».. W'‘ 


«• ■ V * n 


* . * . 'i 



.♦V 


rv^«’ 

1. 

• H*V.''' 


•l' 


vr Y 


- * rsr . . '' / ■- 

■;?**: -r 






^ V» 

,K ^ - 


% « -1 • f •, • 


# 

4 






c 


• / 


1 


u' ^ w 

^ V* ' 




^ y' 



V 


r ";• 


I 


► 

4^“’ 




. I 

M, 


Vt ■ ■ '•. f / . • V \t^'».> v ■ - . 

9| ■'.. ■ I- 

P >» • ^ 


A-* 


:‘M . 

i ■ ■■ iy<»i! ■■; :i ■ .r. 


• A 


*■ . 

k 


•'■ 

* •? 




.V 



•'■■■'-■ ait ,?..<.>• ■ 

.♦ 

.V 

. Tf-'/ ' , ■'- 

’. ' ■'* . 

• ^ t ' ' ' 

lit 

-*4 ■* i* W- ’aT •V 




•f. m 


#. #1*-. 


i *1; 



f ii- 


4 

> 


II, 


>• 

>• 




tr 
* t 




■ ii 

' 1j r. 




^ V.s'. :. V >•■. ■ ? 

5'!*' ■■;' Ji!:^;ipi->''.' .'■;, ■;.n.v.. ■ ^rj -,.• 

.- . .V. 7 '' 4 ^f. •>».• •. -v *. L ■: 




I 

4r> . 


ki 



it 




/ 


,« 

« 


ll * 

t 





\‘ i 



' . tisa^.v 


V .. - 9m‘\ '■ •;■!•■'.Wv-'V ■ , ■ ■ ■’* 










‘ -i *'. .-. •• ■' 


^ « 






'/ '‘-i '•■ ♦. •^' . ■' 

. • • ^ * .»c *-^ 






•• " 'A • iW*' 

'. ■ ^ ^‘‘ .‘V • ' M 

* ■‘-:v.:-^ ■, -f 

V ’ v -«:.V^‘T^ if 

V -V^'T f 1 ■■ ■• :;'---i 

• ^ *; j'.-'f'lT* :•’ t' 




« i 




*, ' » • ' V* / ^ I 

I*' . -fsT' » ,1 

•.' ' .V 





*. • / r '■^•^ 


"Si ■•■ -•>if<*‘ 


■-' v . I' _ iipKiijr "• - •'' ■ ■ /■ * ' ‘ -'’'•jfJ! 


,.- . W‘f>'I . 

llr-r;-- ^ rtf V*" V ^ ) ■ 









* . _ ' _^__ r • - - 


‘’1* 

« 


» 


■:r * '■' » 


*. ‘ 

^1». * ^ 




**" ' . ;*,t , “ J-. ^y'' '^4 


* • 

*. • ^ 







> V 



, Hi;',' ,;,/■■ ’^m-. 

~ ■•- ■'vy'-.y-'y/'.^:,'--'->:.^'»;r:Sr W^r* ■ .« 


;;>Xv»:'r^'': ■•’' '■;*) 




■ -; .>^«5M.., ?- , l!^ 


/ • f 

" V •. 

« 

•k 


' - 

,^r4^ -»• 

1 % * 

r\ 


■ * r ■: ^ 

: •if* ' 


r ;■■■ 

-ig 

■ «9 

► 

.ir 

■* mS 


TS’ 


^ .v.f 


■'f- 


■., * •♦V'' 'itt' •-'' ■'., ( 

■ ■■ ■' '‘^ ' " -r 


. 1 




*’, . . . ' 

. v:^-V?5f“7 


I 



:-y li 


. • ■ • *1 .1 . 

►v‘ ,• a'’ • ♦ • 

.4^*. H- 


rv. • V- i' 

' * - - ^ h V^ 


> 1 

4 >h - 

*' -K 

-<;'■ ■ 

4f 

4- 


' ^ 

., vr 

- * ■ 


* 

'rl. 

;■ /i, 

*> S 

;■ 


c 


. • ■ I 


■ • r^o-.'^-*- '-.A. 


V ' 

..S f. 

‘ ■ ' \ 


*>»*^. •!«.♦.I 




S wH-. 5 ^ , . 






V;' 


J V > 

%.■; >■ .<* 




\ i 
“ » 





y- 


i,v 


^ .■ * ^>7* \.,ai ^ ^ ‘ *9 

- -v^V-- -i' ^ 

■ . y .-■ I .•.'(,'T ’••^\.':'; ^■'s<<:-'. - - ■ ; ■.,;1'' ■ ' ^ 

, -.’-‘Vr'i,- 'Vvi--...•,•’.■•.■«' ;.;?•• I*; ;■ 4’ 




i-; i * . < V 

:.r,, J ‘ •--< • . •-'^'- 


r.- ’ 


•*,;.' v^--f.- y 







1 





* 











; ■ ■. 






1< 


?%-vf 



• ■ w-> >"‘U- .* 

'«•»•* « iv 



j. 


*’'. h ■* 


t* 



‘;^'r ■■,, 


t -• .' ”. ^ • > >J .3 

c- • V.'. *•• - •■ ‘ 



" 

» V 


« V ■ ^ » 


r u*' 


. it 


4 V 


I ^ 



♦ « 












•V -->f 




'V •fc ' •»Or**- >«'0 * k 

■: ,-U:' . •' >i:--.r,>:' ..., 

ik • ? - f 3b * » J* '»• A y ^ 




«i 


; ^<1.^ ■'V;v-; '-'5^^^;? ' ^ 

ii'-Cv'' ■" •..' 






?'•''’*- :r., 

H -L - • , • •*' *' ■■^‘* '“ 


•'• fi 




jjA 


• »*« 


-r ^• 




^ "**■ 

Jr V‘--' 

v-'v: 

#*►.- S*(r>J 





i 



'■..N vir, ■■••^ fei^'V«■•■ i)?; 








Retireuient and Recoinage of the Trade-Dollar. 


SPEECH 

OP 

HON. JAMES F. MILEEll, 

h 

OF TEXAS, 

In the House of Eepresentatives, 

Monday^ March 31, 1884. 


The House having under consideration the bill (H. R. 4976) for the retirement 
and recoinage of the trade-dollar— 

Mr. MILLER, of Texas, said: 

Mr. Speaker : The first question presented by the bill under dis¬ 
cussion is, should the Government recall and recoin the trade-dollar. 
That this ought to be done seems almost too plain for argument. The 
act of February 12, 1873 (Revised Statutes, section 3513), provides that 
the silver coins of the United States shall be a trade-dollar, half-dollar, 
&c. The same act fixes the weight and standard alloy of the trade-dol¬ 
lar and makes it of the same fineness of the other silver coins, so that as 
to its standard of purity it is in no sense a debased coin. The same 
act (Revised Statutes, section 3586) makes the silver coins of the United 
States (of which this trade-dollar was one) a legal tender at their nomi¬ 
nal value for any amount not exceeding $5 in any one payment. 

Thus the trade-dollar was put forth upon the country by force of law 
as one of the standard coins of the Government, a legal tender in pay¬ 
ment of debts, and having all the attributes that legislation gave to any 
' silver coin. 

There was nothing in the act of February 12, 1873, to show that this 
coin was not intended to be one of the coins provided by the Govern¬ 
ment for general circulation among the people. The fact that it may 
have been intended for exi)ort does not appear in the law of its creation 
nor elsewhere in the statutes. There was nothing to put the people 
upon notice that it was not to be received and paid out in business as 
any other coin until 1876, when its legal-tender quality was taken away 
by an act of Congress. It then became a disowned bantling bearing 
the shield and device of the coins of the United States, yet not receivable 
at its Treasury nor by any of its officers in payment of dues to the Gov¬ 
ernment, not being permitted to have even the poor privilege of being 
taken in at the mint and recoined into its more popular successor the 
Bland dollar. It thus became a burden and a source of loss to citizens 
who held it and a prolific source of cheating in a small way by being 
passed upon the unwary or illiterate as a veritable dollar in fact and 



legal effect of the Government, whose impress it bore and whose dollar 
mark was stamped upon its face. 

It would seem, therefore, to be the plain duty of the Government to 
recall and recoin this mischievous production of its mints, and this 
seems to be generally conceded. But the debatable questions seem to 
arise out of the manner in which this is to be done. Shall it be bought 
back by the Government at its face value or at its bullion value, or 
shall it again be made a legal tender ? It is argued by gentlemen who 
favor a repurchase at its bullion value that the Goveimment would 
sustain a loss by redeeming it in standard silver dollars. 

In answer to this I have to say that the trade-dollar contains 
grains more silver than the standard dollar, and this, as stated by the 
Director of the Mint, will pay all the expenses of its recoinage and still 
leave a profit to the Government. 

The anticipated loss, therefore, is only the probable profits which the 
Government might make by purchasing silver bullion in the markets 
and coining it into standard dollars instead of taking the trade-dollar 
at its nominal value. I for one am not willing for this Government 
to go into this kind of speculation in its own coins. I believe it ought 
to be governed by the same moral and legal code that would in like cir¬ 
cumstances govern individuals. If an individual makes a negotiable 
note, puts it upon the market, audit goes into the hands of an innocent 
holder he can not plead a failure of consideration to relieve himselT 
from its payment. If the Government issues a paper dollar or a coin 
dollar and sends it out into circulation, gives it a current value as a dol¬ 
lar, it ought not to refuse to receive it back at such value, even although 
it might be able to make a profit by doing otherwise. 

It is proposed by an amendment to the bill to make the recoinage of 
the trade-dollar an addition to the coinage of silver authorized by the 
act of February 28, 1878. The effect of this would be to increase our 
annual coinage of silver from five to eight millions of dollars during the 
present year, if all these trade-dollars should be reached this year, and 
to put that much more silver in circulation. 

I think this is desirable as a remedy for the probable contraction of 
our currency circulation. During the last fiscal year our surplus rev¬ 
enues were 1132,879,444.41, of which sum $105,322,450 were used in 
paying off our interest-bearing debt; yet with this large retirement of 
bonds our circulation of currency was only diminished $10,713,960; 
during the same time there was an increase in gold circulation of $34,- 
613,992 and of silver circulation $33,957,508, showing a net yearly gain 
in circulation of $57,857,540. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. LACEY. Mr. Speaker- 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. LACEY. I yield ten minutes of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Miller]. 

Mr. MILLER, of Texas, continuing, said: The Secretary of the Treas¬ 
ury estimates the surplus revenue at eighty-five millions of dollars for 
the current fiscal year, of which it will be necessary to apply forty-five 
m\llions to the sinking fund. This estimate is probably too low, but if 
we put the surplus revenue at one hundred millions we will have fifty- 
five millions left for the payment of the 3 per cent, bonds, about two- 
thirds of which are held by the national banks as a basis of circulation, 
upon which there is probably $90 of circulation for each $100 of bonds. 
Now, if the whole surplus revenue were invested in these 3 percents 





a 


(except the sinking fund), it would cause a contraction of circulation in 
currency of about thirty-six millions of dollars. Under the act of 28th 
February, 1878, our silver coinage can not he less than twenty-seven 
millions of dollars per year; add to this, say, eight million trade-dollars, 
and the deficiency in circulation will be met, so nearly as to not cause 
any disturbance in values. 

There is also the further proposition by the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Bland] to make the coinage of silver free as gold now is, or, in 
other words, to permit the owners of silver to have it coined at the mints 
at their pleasure, they paying the expense of coinage. 

I believe this would afford a remedy for any threatened contraction 
of currency circulation, and that it would be a remedy for the accumu¬ 
lation of silver in the vaults of our Treasury. Now the Government 
goes upon the market, purchases silver bullion and coins it into money. 
It is the property of the Government, and will stay there until the Gov¬ 
ernment chooses to pay it out. If it belonged to individuals they would 
not pay the expense of coining it until they desired to use it, so that 
upon being coined it would go out into circulation in some shape. On 
November 1, 1883, the national bank notes outstanding amounted to 
$352,013,787. Because of the increase of premium on United States 
bonds, the basis of this circulation, it has ceased to be profitable to the 
banks and they threaten to surrender their circulation, and thus create a 
very severe contraction of the currency, unless some relief be afforded 
them. 

There can be no permanent relief to these banks except by an exten¬ 
sion of the time of payment of the bonds of the Government for a long 
period, and this I regard as not for a moment to be considered. In my 
judgment the people of the United States desire the payment of their 
interest-bearing debt as rapidly as the surplus revenues will permit, and 
it is for the best interests of the people that this should be done. It 
will be wise, therefore, for us to begin to prepare for some other circula¬ 
tion than national-bank notes. To what better source can we look than 
to a currency based upon gold and silver in circulation or in our Treasury 
vaults? • 

On June 30,1882, our coin and bullion were estimated at $700,455,545; 
on June 30, 1883, $765,470,993. Our coinage from June to October, 
1883, was $14,333,029; and on November 1,1883, the Secretary of the 
Treasury states our coin and bullion as follows; United States gold 
coin, $544,512,699; gold bullion, $61,683,816; United States silver coin, 
$235,291,323; silver bullion, $5,107,911; total, $846,595,749; showing a 
net gain in command bullion from June 30,1882, to November 1, 1883, of 
$146,140,204. 

The production of our mines is about thirty-two millions in gold 
and thirty-five millions in silver—one of the greatest industries of our 
country to be fostered. In addition to these resources we have export¬ 
able and surplus products of immense yearly value, which if the state 
of trade and our Treasury demanded it would be exported and returns 
of balances made in gold, thus giving us in a very short time a sure and 
solid circulation or basis for it. During and since the war we have be¬ 
come so accustomed to the use of paper money that we regard anything 
else as unhandy and cumbersome. If it be necessary to have a paper 
circulation, let us have it based upon gold and silver of equal value 
deposited in the Treasury and subject to the call of the holder of the 
certificate of deposit. This in my opinion would be the cheapest and 
best circulation possible to the people of the United States. It would 


4 


1)6 the cheapest because the loss of certificates by accident, by fire, 
and by fiood would more than compensate the Government for the 
issuance of the certificates and taking care of the coin; cheapest be¬ 
cause it would not rely for its security upon a bond of the Govern¬ 
ment upon which the people would have to pay interest at 3, 4, or 
per cent. It would be the safest system of finance because the certifi¬ 
cate would represent a number of dollars equal to its amount, ready at 
all times for its redemption. It would not be subject to the fluctua¬ 
tions in value or quantity to which any currency based upon credit is 
subjected. It would not be subject to be diminished or increased at 
the pleasure of individuals or corporations to suit their schemes of specu¬ 
lation. 

Any system of circulation based upon credit, as our circulation now 
is, must of necessity be a burden upon the great body of the people 
(the tax-payers). The use of credit must always be paid for. Our 
present national-bank notes rest for security upon a credit, a Govern¬ 
ment bond upon which the people must pay interest. If we use a 
Treasury note it represents a debt of the Government, due to the peo¬ 
ple; it represents the labor or property of the citizen taken by the 
Government for its use. Bearing no interest and being a legal tender, it 
partakes of the nature of a forced loan by the Government from the 
people. 

All Government circulation must represent a debt or a deposit. Gov¬ 
ernment is not a bank to loan out its assets or credit, nor is it a chari¬ 
table institution to give away the property or credit of the people. Its 
circulation must of necessity, then, go out in payment of its debts or as 
a certificate of a deposit of which it is the trustee. Now we have the sys¬ 
tem of debt, but that debt is being rapidly paid. Let us, then, hasten to 
get to the deposit system, and then utilize for circulation our great 
wealth of metals. 

The accumulation of very large amounts of coin in our Treasury will 
in times of peace and prosperity be no disadvantage to commerce, to 
business, or to individual industry and enterprise, and in time of war, 
in time of panic and financial difficulty, it will be a very great element 
of strength to the credit of the Government, and will grbatly assist in 
maintaining business enterprises and financial prosperity and the public 
credit. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

O 


9 


PROTECTION TO AMERICAN INDUSTRIES. 




SPEECH 


OF 


HON. SAMUEL H. MILLER, 

o 


IN THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


Friday, Mat 2, 188i. 


Enlightened protection is emphatically the hope and stay of the toiling millions 
over the whole face of the earth .—Horace Greeley. 


WASHINGTON 

1884. 





Protection to American Industries 


Enlightened protection is emphatically the hope and stay of the toiling mill¬ 
ions over the whole face of the earth.— Horace Greely. 


In one of the smallest and dingiest of the forges of Halesowen, (England), we 
found two men at work making light nails, such as girlsare put to making when 
at 14 years of age the British law will allow them to leave school and enter upon 
their lives of unwomanly toil.. One of these men was a cripple, and the other 
was evidently suffering from pulmonary disease. One of them by expending 
his force for full time could earn 3s. per week and the othe 4s., from each of which 
sums are deducted weekly Is. for fuel and furnace rent, so that at the close of the 
week they had as a net result of their joint toil $1.25. In the villages I have 
named, all of which are appendages to Birmingham, we also saw English girls 
and matrons making large fire-bricks; one carrying against her breast or stom¬ 
ach heavy lumps of wet clay, out of which her coworker, it may be her sister or 
mother, molded the immense bricks which she who had brought the clay carried 
to a heated space near to where she was to pick up her next load of wet clay. 
Why, you ask, do these girls engage in such work ? The answer is a simple one ; 
they prefer to make bricks because they can make 6,s., or a dollar and a half, net 
per week, while their sisters who make nails or chains can not assuredly earn 
so much, and are, as I have said, subject to a charge of Is. 6d. per week for fuel 
and rent of forge.— Representative Kelley, of Pen^tsylvania. 


A tariff for revenue, as contra-distinguished from a tariff for protection, rep¬ 
resents the theory and principles of the Democratic party as I understand them.— 
Representative Culberson, of Texas. 


We demand that all custom-house taxation shall be only for revenue.— Demo¬ 
cratic National Convention 1876' 


A Tariff for revenue only.— Democratic National Convention 1880. 

SPEECH 

OP 

HON. SAMUEL H. MILLEK. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5893) to reduce import duties and 
war-tariff taxes— 

Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania, said: 

Mr. Chairman: I have listened with a good deal of interest to the 
expressions of sympathy that we have heard upon this floor from gentle¬ 
men on the other side of this Chamberfor the agricultural, manufactur¬ 
ing, and mining industries of the country. I have listened with interest 
to the remarks of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mills], who stated 
that the manufacturing interests were ina very unfortunate and bad sit¬ 
uation. I listened with interest to the remarks of the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hurd], who thought that the agricultural interests were in a 
most depressed condition, and that the agriculturists and those who la- 









4 


bor upon the farms were in a sorry and serions plight. I listened with 
peculiar interest to the alleged condition of the mining industries as 
viewed by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hewitt], whotheother 
day in a most serious manner sympathized with thepeople who worked 
in our manufacturing establishments and in our mines, and he told a 
harrowung tale ol how the people in the mines that he visited somewhere 
last summer, possibly one of his own, were working for the pitiable wages 
of 62 cents a day and living in hovels unfit for the beasts of the field. 
Now, it maybe, sir, that the remarks of the gentleman from New York 
apply to his own employes who work in his mines, and who have aided 
by working at this low rate to gather the millions of dollars which he 
enjoys. It may be that they worked for 62 cents for him. 

It may be that his employes live in hovels such as he graphically de¬ 
scribed; but speaking for my constituency, a constituency employed 
in mining, a constituency employed in manufacturing, a constituency 
employed in agriculture, I must emphatically assert that that parallel 
does not exist in any one of the three counties of the district I repre¬ 
sent on this floor. The statistics of the district which I represent ex¬ 
hibit in round numbers the following as the total value of agricultural 
and manufactured products for the census year 1880: 


Counties. 

Products 
of farm. 

Manufact¬ 

ures. 

Butler. 

$2.244,838 
3,274,800 
2,342,200 

81,080,290 
4,373,854 
7,952,874 

Crawford. 

Alercer. 

Total... 

7,861,838 

13,407,018 



Sir, in my home county, which contains the bulk of the manufact¬ 
uring interests in the district, and where the greatest amount of coal 
is mined in the district, the men who work in the mills and who work 
in the mines are as well housed, as well fed, and as well educated as 
the men who work on the farms; and in intelligence and morality they 
are the peers of any constituency that is represented by any gentleman 
on this floor. They are supplied with facilities for education enjoyed 
only by the people of a portion of our country and excelled by none. 
In the mining and manufacturing towns of Sharon, Sharpsville, Middle¬ 
sex, Stoneboro’, and Grove City, in Mercer County, they enjoy nine to ten 
months public schools per year, and are taught by teachers who have 
no superiors in the country. The same is true of the mining districts 
outside of the towns, although the term of school in some places is but 
eight months and in others but nine. Let me say to the gentleman from 
New York that no Hungarians imported under the contract system mine 
coal in the county of Mercer; and whether a statute is passed to prevent 
such importations or not, I believe, sir, that not only the people engaged 
in mining and maufacturing, but that the people engaged in agriculture 
as well, will, with one voice, unite to prevent such a calamity. 

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to go into a dissertation relative to 
the tariff. I do not propose to attempt to enlighten the House upon 
that subject. But living in a district such as I represent, where all 
branches of industries flourish, where the surface of the land for agri¬ 
cultural pursuits is worth from $50 to $100 per acre, and the minerals 
under the surface are worth $200 per acre and over more, I simply pro¬ 
pose to give my observations as to what tariff legislation has done, not 















5 


only for the whole people in the district I represent, but for the State 
of Pennsylvania and for the country at large. 

But before I proceed 1 desire to call the attention of gentlemen upon 
this floor to the wages that are paid in the locality where I live. I read, 
sir, from the report of the superintendent of the bureau of statistics of 
Pennsylvania for the year 1882, and will find the tables in an appendix. 

Mr. Chairman, when we contemplate the growth and development 
of our country during the past twenty years, we are astounded equally 
by the progress in every department, whether it be in agriculture, manu¬ 
facturing, mining, or means of transportation. In no other twenty years 
of our national existence have we made such rapid and substantial ad¬ 
vancement in every material interest. To-day the United States is 
recognized as the most prosperous country in the family of nations. 
From every other country the common and skilled workmen have sought 
our workshops, mines, and boundless prairies, and by their industry and 
skill have aided to enrich the nation and to give an additional impetus 
to our growth.^ During the last decade alone more than 7,000,000 immi¬ 
grants have been welcomed to our shores, and by their capital and 
labor have assisted in enlarging our agricultural area, in opening up 
our mines and developing our mineral resources, and in erecting, equip¬ 
ping, and keeping in successful operation our manifold industries. 

PROGRESS IN AGRICULTURE. 

The increase in our agricultural productions from 1860 to 1880 is un¬ 
paralleled, as is illustrated by the statistics of the following leading 
commodities: 


Commodities. 

1860. 

1880. 

Corn. 

Wheat. 

Oats. 

Barley. 

Wool. 



838,792,742 
173,104,924 
172,643, 185 
15,825,898 
60,264,913 

1,754,861,535 
459,479,505 
407,858,999 
44,113,495 
155,681,751 


It was asserted in this discussion by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Mills] that the value of the agricultural crop of 1880 was not as great 
in value as that of 1860 by $300,000,000. He admitted that the quan¬ 
tity had largely increased, but claimed that this decrease in value was 
the result of the fall in the price of farm products, caused by the high- 
tariff*obstructions thrown in the channels of commerce in 1861, and which 
obstructions still remain. As stated by him, the quantities of all farm 
products of 1860 are given in the Census but the values are not given. 
This is true in part.^ This much, however, we find in the censuses of 
the two years: 



1860. 

1880. 

Number of farms. 

Tmjiroved laufl aores. 

2,044,077 
163,110,720 

3,800,000 
S6, 645,045,007 
246,118,141 
19,991,885 
1,089,329,915 
Not stated. 

4,008,907 
284,771,042 

7,670,493 
SlO, 197,096,776 
406,520,055 
50,876,154 
1,500,464,609 
2,213,402,564 

Number of men engaged in agriculture (esti¬ 
mated in 18 K)). 

Value of farms. 

Value of farming implements. 

Value of orchard products. 

Value of live-stock. 

Value of all other farming products. 

































G 


As above indicated, the value of all farm products, other than orchard 
products and live-stock, is not stated in 1860, but at most it is an esti¬ 
mate. We have the quantities, which are as nearly correct as such 
statistics can be obtained, and by a reference to the current prices of 
commodities in New York for the years stated a nearly correct result 
can be obtained. By such an examination we find the following values 
for the five principal productions for said years: 


Commodities. 

Quantities. 

Value. 

1860. 

1880. 

1860. 

1880. 

Corn. 


838,792,742 

1,7.54,861,5.35 

S536, 827,354 

$851,107,844 

Wheat.... 


173,104,924 

459,479,505 

203,691,647 

473,263,890 

Oats. 

.bush... 

172,643,18.5 

407,858, 999 

63,878,976 

146,829,239 

Wool. 

.lbs... 

60,264,913 

155,681,751 

22,297,317 

54,488,612 

Cotton.... 


2,054,698,800 

2,533,254,680 

205,469,880 

278,258,014 

Total value... 



1,062,165,174 

1,804,347,599 


EXPORT OF LEADING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS. 


The history of the growth of our agricultural products is better shown 
by the export of our surplus for the same years of the following lead¬ 
ing commodities: 


Commodities. 

1860. 

1880. 

Grain and breadstuffs. 

$24,422,320 
16,612,443 
1,855,091 
1,598,176 
1, 609, .328 
26,799 
600,729 
32,866 
206,055 

$288,036,835 
127,043,242 
15,882,120 
7, 689,232 
6, 259,827 
3,476,240 
2,776,823 
2,573,292 
2,090,634 

Provisions. 

Animals, living:. 

Tallow. 

Oil cake. 

Vegetable oils. 

Seeds. 

Hops. 

Fruits. 

Total. 

46,963,807 

455,828,245 



Mr. Chairman, while we admit that many farm commodities are 
lower in price than in 1860, and that the prime necessities of life are 
cheaper than in most foreign countries, we deny that the American 
farmer is not as well remunerated for his labor to-day as he was in 1860 
and prior. Statistics disprove it. Our own observations disprove it. 
The well-kept farms, the modern farm-houses and farm buildings which 
greet the eye on every hand, the improved farm machinery and farm im¬ 
plements, the easy-riding carriage, the well-dressed, educated, and intel¬ 
ligent people who till the soil, all disprove it. In short, the American 
farmer of to-day is better housed, better fed, better clothed, better edu¬ 
cated, and enjoys more of the comforts and luxuries of life than did 
those of 1860 and prior. 

PROGRESS IN MANUFACTURES. 

Wonderful as has been the growth in agriculture, the progress in 















































7 


manufactures has been equally rapid, as is evidenced by the foliowmg: 
statistics for the years 1850, 1860, and 1880: 

STATISTICS OF MANUFACTURES IN THE UNITED STATES. 



1850. 

1860. 

1880. 

Establishments. 

123,025 
S533,245,351 
81,019,106,616 
957,059 
8247 

8236,755.464 

140,433 
81,009,855,715 
81,885,861,676 
1,311,246 
8288 
8878,878,966 

253,852 
82,790,272,606 
85,369,579,191 
2,738,895 
8346 
8947,953,795 

Capital. 

Product. 

Number of employes. 

Average yearly wages. 

Total wages paid.. 



STATISTICS OF MANUFACTURES IN PENNSYLVANIA. 



1&50. 

1860. 

1880. 

Establishments. 

21,605 
894,473,810 
8155,044,910 
146,766 
8253 
837,163,232 

22,363 
8190,055,904 
8290,121,188 

31,232 
8474,510,993 
8744,818,445 
387,072 
*8346 
8134,055,909 

Capital. 

Product... 

Number of employes. 

Average wages paid. 

8271 
860,369,165 

Total wages paid. 



* Obtained by adding the total wages paid men, women, boys, and girls to¬ 
gether, and dividing the product by the total number of employes. This largely 
reduces the average wages paid the adult male laborers. 

It is a noticeable fact that the average wages of the employes has 
steadily increased during the past thirty years, notwithstanding that 
the price of every manufactured article and of almost every article on 
the American breakfast table has decreased in price year by year. Thus 
the interests of the farmer and of the industrial laborer are equally 
benefited, each receiving a better remuneration for his capital and 
labor. 

As further illustrating the rapid strides made in our manufacturing 
industries in thirty years, I submit the statistics of the following manu¬ 
factures, which largely enter into daily consumption. The magnitude 
of the increase from 1850 to 1880 is suggestive. If it be true that the 
growth of the industries of a nation are best marked by the amount of 
coal and iron it consumes, then surely our growth has been phenom¬ 
enal ! 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OP ELEVEN INDUSTRIES. 


Industries. 

1850. 

1860. 

1880. 

Poofs and shoes. 

853,357*036 
37,791,873 
43.678,802 
65,501,687 
45,281,764 
16.231,409 

889,549,900 

81%, 920,481 

TiCather. 

63,090,751 

208,587,421 

Clothing. 

68,002,975 

241,553,234 

Cotton goods. 

115,137,926 

277,172,086 

Woolen goods. 

68,865,963 

275,494,217 

Eiirnit lire. 

22,701,304 

75,296,795 

T.iiTnHpr .. 

58,521,976 
6,842.611 
7,173,750 
13,491,898 
15,938,786 

95,912,286 

233,268,729 

7 ^gr'eiilfiiral implements. 

17,787,309 
19,365,765 

68,640,486 

f^oa 1 m i n ed. 

95,716, &51 

Pig-iron. 

19,487,790 

89,315,569 
136,798,574 

Par and rolled iron. 

22,248,796 





















































8 


INCREASE IN RAILROAD MILEAGE. 

Another feature marking the growth of our industries is the rapid ex¬ 
tension of our railway system. From 9,000 miles in 1850 it had in¬ 
creased to 30,000 miles in 1860 and to 92,000 miles in 1880, with a 
capital and bonded debt of nearly $5,000,000,000, and gross earnings 
of over $600,000,000 in 1880. While the whole world had hut 260,000 
miles of rail in 1882, the United States had 120,000 miles—nearly one- 
half. 

THE RESULTING BENEFITS TO THE PEOPLE. 

It is with equal pride that we turn from this record of our industrial 
growth to contemplate the progress of our people. In no other coun¬ 
try has man been so nearly estimated at his true worth, or been so well 
rewarded for his labor. While our farms have grown in number, in 
beauty, and in fertility, the owners and occupiers have increased in 
wealth and intelligence. While our manufacturers have increased in 
number and extent, they have aided largely in building up towns and 
cities, drawn from the Old World her most skillful artisans, given em¬ 
ployment, directly and indirectly, to more than one-half the adult pop¬ 
ulation of the United States, and created a home market for the greater 
portion of our annually increasing agricultural products. Conceding 
that the common or unskilled labor of the country is underpaid, it is 
still true that in no other nation is labor paid so well. From every 
land the constant stream of immigration centers at our shores, and once 
here no other can win them away. 

PROTECTION THE HOPE AND THE STAY OF THE TOILING MILLIONS. 

And now for a moment let us turn aside and answer the rising in¬ 
quiry: “What causes have contributed to the rapid growth of our 
manufacturing and agricultural interests in the past twenty years?’' 
While admitting that nature has done much to make these phenomenal 
results possible, wise legislation has been the motive power. To my 
mind no other legislation has exerted so great an influence as that 
which inaugurated the American doctrine of protection to home in¬ 
dustry. Forty-two years ago that distinguished political economist and 
humanitarian, Horace Greeley, wrote these w'ords: 

Enlightened protection is emphatically the hope and stay of the toiling 
millions over the whole face of the earth. Wherever a hammer is lifted, a plow 
held, a shuttle thrown, over the globe there is one whose direct interest it is 
that labor should be efficiently protected not merely in his own but in all coun¬ 
tries, and that the excessive and fatal competition of capital with capital, sinew 
with sinew, privation with privation, to excel in cheapness of production—that 
is, cheapness in money-price—should be checked and bounded. Let labor there¬ 
fore with one mighty voice demand adequate, stable protection, and a wider, 
deeper prosperity will soon irradiate the land, carrying independence, com¬ 
fort, and joy to the dwelling alike to the farmer and artisan in every section of 
the country. 

Nearly twenty years elapsed from the time these words were written 
until Congress, by proper legislation, gave the policy outlined above a 
fair trial. For twenty-two years the policy of protection has been en¬ 
forced, and it has confirmed the truth of Mr. Greeley’s prophecy. Un¬ 
der this policy I assert, without fear of successful contradiction, that 
no other continuous twenty years of our national existence has wit¬ 
nessed such progress. In no other continuous tw^enty years has the 
farmer received such remunerative prices and had so good a market for 
his products. In no other continuous twenty years has the common 
and skilled laborer received better wages and enjoyed more of the com¬ 
forts and luxuries of life. During that period our exports of domestic 
products have excited the admiration not only of our own people but 


9 


of the civilized world. Our national revenue has been so abundant 
that our wisest statesmen have been at a loss to find proper objects to 
absorb the surplus. The investigations of our financiers and of our 
Ways and Means Committee have been directed to find the means of re¬ 
ducing rather than to raise revenue. What other period of our national 
history presents such an anomaly ? Where in our history is there 
another period of equal duration where our Treasury was so full and the 
rate of interest so low ? In what other period has so much of our soil 
been reclaimed and adorned by the habitations of its industrious and 
thrifty cultivators ? In what other period has our cities grown so rap¬ 
idly in population, wealth, and culture? In what other portion of the 
habitable globe has man advanced so rapidly or accomplished so much 
in the same period ? In what country has labor been better paid? Is 
it in the British Isles? The emmigration from them to this country 
has been over half a million people in the last three years. Is it in 
Germany? Six hundred and fifty thousand emigrants have come from 
Germany in the same three years. Is it in Sweden, Norway, Den¬ 
mark, Italy, Russia, France, or other portions of America ? Over 700,- 
000 em migrants have come I’rom these countries to the United States in 
the same three years. Look where you will, go where you may, the 
United States is the most inviting point on the globe for the man whose 
only capital is his labor, whose only stock in trade is his muscle. 

WHO IS IT THAT WANTS A CHANGE? 

The Democratic party, however, as represented on this floor, tell us 
the people want a change in the Wiif legislation. They tell us that 
this protection policy is a false pretense; that we must reduce our 
tariff duties so as to reduce the cost of production and thereby cheapen 
the price of our manufactured articles. Do the manufacturers ask 
this ? Do the laborers of the country ask this ? Do the farmers ask 
this? When? Where? Is there any individual, class, or organization 
which asks this but the Democratic party? This is no new departure 
for that party. It has been stated in this discussion by a Democratic 
Representative [Mt.Waenek, of Tennessee] that the Democratic party 
has at all times been opposed to the protective policy, and he cited the 
declarations of the party in its national conventions from the year 1838 
to 1880, inclusive, to prove it. There is no doubt as to this point. As 
a party it has opposed the passage of every protective-tariff act, and 
when in power it has never let the opportunity pass without repealing 
such as were in force when it came into power. The action of the 
party at this time is in perfect accord with its traditions. 

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE TARIFF ISSUE. 

Forty-two years ago the great body of the people of the United States 
believed that the question of protection to home industry had been set¬ 
tled in favor of a fair protective policy. The law known as ‘‘the tariff 
of forty-two” had just gone into operation. Tlie two great political 
organizations of the country avowedly accepted it as a settlement of the 
question. Two years later one of the political orgai^izations had nom¬ 
inated as its standard-bearer in the Presidential campaign of that year 
the great iwlvocateof protection of that time, Henry Clay. The other 
adopted a revenue plank which could be read either for or against pro¬ 
tection as occasion should require, but inscribed on its campaign ban¬ 
ners in the great industrial centers, ‘‘Polk, Dallas, and the tariff’ of 
forty-two!” Lulled into security by the pledges of the Democratic 
party leaders and of the Democratic candidate for Vice-President, a 


10 


citizen of Pennsylvania, which State then as now was unqualifiedly in 
favor of the protective policy, the people elected the Democratic candi¬ 
dates for President and Vice-President. Scarcely, however, had the 
new administration entered upon its duties until the Democracy, flushed 
with victory, set to work to repeal the tariff law'of “forty-two,” which 
it finally accomplished, Mr. Dallas casting the decisive vote as j)resid¬ 
ing officer of the United States Senate. Since then the tw'o great par¬ 
ties have occupied no uncertain position on this question. For forty 
years the Democratic party has been the advocate of free trade. In 
1848 the Democratic national convention, the first held after the repeal 
of the tariff of 1842, made the following declaration: 

Resolved, That the fruits of the great political triumph of 1844 have fulfilled 
the hopes of the Democracy of the Union, in the noble impulse given to the 
cause of free trade by the repeal of the tariff of 1842, and the creation of the 
more equal, honest, and protective tarifl'of 1846, and that in our opinion it would 
be a fatal error to weaken the bands of a political organization by which these 
great reforms have been achieved and risk them in the hands of their known 
adversaries, with whatever delusive appeals they may solicit our surrender of 
that vigilance which is the only safeguard of liberty. 

In 1852 the Democratic national convention made the following 
declaration: 

Resolved, That in view of the condition of popular institutions in the Old 
World a high and sacred duty is devolved with increased responsibility upon 
the Democracy of this country, as the party of the people, to uphold and main¬ 
tain the rights of every State, and thereby the Union of States, and to sustain 
and advance among them constitutional liberty by continuing to resist all mo¬ 
nopolies and exclusive legislation for the benefit of the few at the expense of the 
many. 

In 1856 the Democratic national convention made the following 
declaration: 

Resolved, That justice and sound policy forbid the Federal Government to 
foster one branch of industry to the detriment of another, or to cherish the in¬ 
terests of one portion of our common country. 

Resolved finally. That there are questions connected with the foreign policy of 
this country which are inferior to no domestic questions whatever. The time 
has come for the people of the United States to declare themselves in favor of 
free seas and progressive free trade throughout the world, and by solemn mani¬ 
festations to place their moral influence at the side of their successful example. 

In 1860 both the Douglas and Breckinridge platforms reaffirmed the 
resolutions of 1856 quoted above. 

In 1864 the great majority of the Democratic party was not repre¬ 
sented at the Democratic national convention held at Chicago, and for 
reasons not relative to this discussion the question of raising revenue 
was not a matter of prime importance to the convention, and the usual 
tariff plank was doubtless inadvertently omitted. 

In 1868 the Northern Democracy were still in the control of the affairs 
of the party and the national convention made the following declara¬ 
tion: 

Q * * * A tariff for revenue upon foreign imports and such equal taxation 
under the internal-revenue laws as will afford incidental protection to domestic 
manufactures and as will, without impairing the revenue, impose the least bur¬ 
den upon and best promote and encourage the great industrial interests of the 
country. 

In 1872 the Democratic convention which nominated Horace Greeley 
contained the following declaration: 

We remit the discussion of the subject [protection and free trade] to the peo¬ 
ple in their Congressional districts and the decision of Congress thereon, wholly 
free from executive interference or dictation. 

As has been remarked by a prominent Democrat in this discussion: 

This is the only hiatus in the chain of assertions by the Democratic party of 
the doctrine of a tariff for revenue only. 


11 


In 1876 the Democratic national convention made the following dec¬ 
laration : 

We denounce the present tariff, levied upon nearly 4,000 articles, as a master¬ 
piece of injttstice, inequality, and false pretense. It yields a dwindling, not a 
yearly rising revenue. It has impoverished many industries to subsidize a few. 
It prohibits imports that might purchase the products of American labor. It 
has degraded American commerce from the first to an inferior rank on the high 
seas. It has cut down the sales of American manufacturers at home and abroad 
and depleted the returns of American agriculture—an industry followed by half 
our people. It costs the people five times more than it produces to the Treas¬ 
ury, obstructs the processes of production and wa.stes the fruits of labor. It 
promotes fraud, fosters smuggling, enriches dishonest officials, and bankrupts 
honest merchants. We demand that all custom-house taxation shall be only 
for revenue. 

In 1880 the Democratic national convention made the following dec¬ 
laration : 

Home rule, honest money, consLsting of gold, silver, and paper convertible 
on demand; the strict maintenance of the public faith. State and national, and 
a tariff for revenue only. 

Since this declaration Congress has enacted the tariff law of 1883, 
and, although it reduced the duties on manufactures which were jm- 
ported in competition with American-made goods, the manufacturing 
interests were willing to accept it as a settlement. By one of those 
political mi.scarriages which can not be accounted for by ordinary rules 
the Democratic party came into power in this Congress. Its lirst official 
act was the election of the ablest advocate of free trade in its organi¬ 
zation as Speaker of the House, and the overwhelming defeat of its 
ablest political leader [Mr. Randall, of Pennsylvania], for the sole 
reason that he was in favor of “incidental protection,” the latter gen¬ 
tleman receiving but 55 votes in caucus out of 191 Democratic mem¬ 
bers. The bill liefore the House is the natural outcome of this party. 
As frankly stated by the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, 
Mr. Moekisox, of Illinois: 

It is not claimed that the bill reported by the committee will afford all the 
relief demanded of the people’s representatives. It is but an advance toward 
and a promise of more complete revenue reform, to attain which a general re¬ 
vision of the tariff and a more eqtiif able adjustment of rates on its long list of 
dutiable articles is essential. Such a revision and adjustment was believed to 
be unattainable at the present session of Congress. 

“ It is but an advance toward and a promise of more complete rev¬ 
enue reform,” providing the Democratic party gain ascendency in the 
executive and legislative branches of the Government. 

Mr. Culberson, of Texas, who lives in a State so overwhelmingly 
Democratic that there is no necessity of concealing his real views, said 
in this discussion: 

A tariff for revenue, as contradistinguished from a tariff for protection, repre¬ 
sents the theory and principle of the Democratic party, as I understand them, 
upon tariff taxation, and is the only constitutional and just mode of raisingrev- 
enue by impost duties. 

The bill under consideration is a conservative approach, toward a tariff for 
revenue. 

It is believed by some that the amount of revenue that will be realized under 
its provisions, in case it becomes a law, will be thirty millions less per annum 
than the amount usually collected under the existing tariff; but I do not concur 
in that opinion. On the contrary, I believe the revenue will be increased, and I 
supported in that opinion by the uniform operation of tariff taxation. Every 
reduction in the rates of the tariff from high protection toward a revenue basis 
increases importations, and consequently the amount of revenue ; but such re¬ 
sult 'Will present no objection to the bill, to my mind, for the reasons I shall here¬ 
after give. 

If I SO desired, I could quote columns of such assertions from the 
remarks of Democratic Representatives who support this bill in this 


12 


debate, but there is no necessity for such action on my part. On the vote 
to take up this bill every vote but five were cast by Democratic Repre¬ 
sentatives. During the campaign of 1882 I had occasion to remark in 
political discussions that if the Democratic party gained avscendency in 
this House by the elections then pending Mr. Randall would be 
Speaker of the House, and a Democrat who was in favor of a “ tariff 
for revenue only” would be chairman of the Ways and Means Com¬ 
mittee. I little thought then that both positions would be occupied by 
two of the most conspicuous advocates of a “ tariff for revenue only” 
that have sat in Congress for twenty years. 

While no alarmist, the bill under consideration, to my mind, bodes 
evil to our country. As remarked by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Culberson], an avowed free-trader, nearly nine-tenths of all dutiable 
goods imported into the United States compete with similar products 
manufactured here for a market. 

An examinationbf the imports for the year ending June 30,1883, fully 
demonstrates this, a statement of which I will publish in an appendix 
to my remarks. In this connection, however, I desire to call the atten¬ 
tion of this House to a few dutiable articles imported into the United 
States under the tariff of 1883, and for the eight months ending Feb¬ 
ruary 29, 1884, two-thirds of which come into competition directly or 
indirectly with the productions of our farms. They are as follows: 

DUTIABLE MERCHANDISE IMPORTED FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDING FEBRUARY 


29, 1884. 

Bituminous coal.:. $1,885,939 

Cotton, manufactures of. 20,606,536 

Earthen, stone, and china ware.. 3,383, 837 

Flax, hemp, jute,and manufactures of.. 22,252,172 

Glass and ^?lassware. 5,216,902 

Iron and steel, and manufactures of.. 27,851,657 

Rice. 1,245,491 

Salt. 1,179,219 

Sawed lumber. 5,426,168 

Wool. 7,487,788 

Wool, manufactures of. 30,800,983 

Hats, bonnets, and hoods. 2,043,398 


Total..... 129,380,090 

Value of other dutiable merchandise imported same time. 175,564,488 


Grand total. 304,944,578 


;Mr. Chairman, it is asserted by the advocates of this bill that our 
manufacturing interests are not in a healthy or satisfactory condition, 
and yet this bill proposes to lower the duties 20 per cent, and still 
further encourage the importations of goods that come into competition 
with similar goods manufactured here. It is asserted by the friends 
of this bill that labor is not sufficiently well employed or sufficiently 
well paid in this country, and yet this bill, by encouraging still larger 
importations of goods produced here, must necessarily displace still 
further American labor. 

FOREWARNED IS FOREARMED. 

What answer will the people of the country give to this Congress and 
to Mr. Carlisle’s Ways and Means Committee ? This question of pro¬ 
tection is of vital importance ‘‘wherever a hammer is lilted, a shuttle 
thrown, or a plow held.” It is tenfold more important to-day than it 
was Ibrty years ago that “ the excessive and fatal competition of cap¬ 
ital with capital, sinew with sinew, privation with privation, to excel 
in cheapness of production should be checked and bounded.” 



















13 


We are in favor of the protective policy for what it has done for us 
in our individual and aggregate capacity in the past. We are in favor 
of the protective policy because we believe it is calculated to promote 
the interest’s of our whole country. We are in favor of the protective 
policy because we believe experience has demonstrated that it advances 
alike the prosperity of the agriculturist, the manufacturer, and the com¬ 
mon and skilled laborers of the country. It has been tried and not 
found wanting. It has stood the test of investigation. It demands the 
most cordial support of every man whose heart sympathizes with the 
toiling millions. Let us stand by it and maintain it, and a ‘‘still 
wider, deeper prosperity will irradiate our land, carrying independence, 
comfort, and joy to the dwellings alike of the farmer and artisan in every 
section of the country.” [Applause.] 


APPENDIX. 

A. 

DUTIABLE IMPORTS. 

The principal and all other articles of dutiable imported merchandise entered 
for consumption in the United States during the year ended June 30,1883, 
in the order of the value of such articles. 


Order. I 

Articles dutiable. 

Values. 

Duties. 

Average 
ad valo¬ 
rem rates 
of duty. 

1 

Sugar, melada, molasses, and con¬ 
fectionery. 

$91,523,850 67 

$16,245,976 46 

50.53 

2 

Iron and steel, and manufactures 
of. 

57,529,165 86 

21,582,554 24 

37.52 

3 

Wool, and manufactures of.. 

51,044,444 22 

32,320,892 52 

63.32 

4 

Cotton, manufactures of. 

37,288,119 07 

13,959,442 52 

37.44 

5 

Silk, manufactures of. 

33,307,112 37 

19,654,946 28 

59.01 

6 

Flax, and manufactures of.. 

23,088.891 13 

7,584,342 87 

32.85 

7 

Fruits, including nuts. 

18,157, 686 79 

4, 603,455 38 

25.35 

8 

Chemicals, drugs, dyes, a«d medi¬ 
cines. 

16,134,203 94 

6,053,574 13 

37.52 

9 

Breadstuff’s, and other farinaceous 
food, not otherwise specified. 

12,667,786 23 

3,756,719 38 
3,770,547 32 

29.66 

10 

Leather, and manufactures of.. 

12,653,722 46 

29.80 

11 

Hemp, jute, &c., and manufactures 
of. 

12,615,392 82 

2,565,560 01 

20.34 

12 

Spirits and wMnes. 

12,586,869 36 

8,741,957 96 

69.45 

13 

Tobacco, and manufactures of.. 

10,515, 806 00 

7,661,637 64 

72.86 

14 

Wood, and manufactures of.. 

9,530,364 12 

1,703,096 20 

17.87 

15 

Earthenware and china. 

8,693,272 63 

3,746,488 74 

43.10 

16 

Fancy articles. 

7,908,102 43 

3,039,082 96 

38.43 

17 

Diamonds (cut), cameos, mosaics, 
&c. 

7,603,752 51 

761,433 41 

10.01 

18 

Glass, and manufactures of. 

7,597,897 43 

4,182,616 58 

55.05 

19 

Furs, and manufactures of. 

5,142,022 65 

1,130,574 90 

21.99 

20 

Buttons and button materials. 

4,061,293 00 

1,160,395 50 

28.57 

21 

Animals, living. 

4,030, 822 51 

806,164 47 

20.00 

22 

Books, engravings, and other 
printed matter, bound or un¬ 
bound. 

3,109,702,66 

771,508 05 

24.81 

23 

Paintings, &c., not by American 
artists. 

3,088,673 34 

309, 847 94 

10.03 

24 

Clocks and watches. 

2,960,908 04 

784,443 11 

26.49 

25 

Braids, plaits, fiats, laces, trim¬ 
mings, &c. 

2,360,738 55 

708,221 57 

30.00 

26 

Coal. 

2,084,151 46 

515,097 28 

24.71 










































14 


Articles of dutiable imported merchandise, &c. —Continued. 


Order. | 

Articles dutiable. 

Values. 

Duties. 

Average 
ad valo¬ 
rem rates 
of duty. 

27 

Paper, and manufactures of, not 





otherwise specified (except 





books). 

1,864,549 30 

645,691 34 

34.63 

28 

Provisions, not otherwise specified 

1,857,447 42 

407,462 74 

21.94 

29 

Spices. 

1,682,163 23 

873,885 70 

51.95 

30 

Seeds. 

1,542,996 78 

314,228 89 

20.36 

3L 

Fish. 

1,474,953 68 

357,978 61 

24.27 

32 

Metals, metal compositions, and 





manufactures of, not otherwise 





specified. 

1,489,445 09 

423,917 03 

28.46 

33 

Musical instruments, and strings 





for. 

1,486,251 15 

445,893 19 

30.00 

34 

Salt. 

1,476,946 43 

705,844 48 

47.79 

35 

Paints and colors. 

1,284,206 11 

422,244 58 

32.88 

36 

Bristles . 

1,193,797 00 

147,586 09 

12.36 

37 

Beer, ale, and porter. 

1,146,796 74 

511,382 75 

44.59 

38 

Potatoes. 

1,091,990 08 

553,544 81 

32.38 

39 

Hail’, and manufactures of. 

1,021,323 25 

217,139 73 

21.26 

40 

Hay. 

954,813 09 

95,486 21 

10,00 

41 

Vegetables, not otherwise specified 

894,282 58 

176,032 14 

19.68 

42 

Zinc, and manufactures of. 

802,932 81 

332,428 27 

41.40 

43 

Hats, bonnets, and hoods. 

802,396 67 

320,958 68 

40.00 

44 

Cement. 

802,294 06 

160,458 80 

20.00 

45 

Mats and matting. 

702,274 76 

208,795 13 

29.72 

46 

Oils, vegetable, fixed or expressed. 

684,709 01 

317,086 63 

46.31 

47 

Corsets and corset cloths. 

684,074 20 

242,623 61 

55.47 

48 

Marble, and manufactures of.. 

607,630 82 

355,876 65 

53.51 

49 

Jewelry, not elsewhere specified... 

592,978 15 

148,244 53 

25.00 

50 

Brass, and manufactures of.. 

570,666 57 

182,664 30 

32.01 

51 

Glue. 

450,361 13 

90,072 23 

20.00 

52 

Brushes of all kinds. 

454,705 74 

173,882 27 

40.00 

53 

Pickles, capers and sauces of all 





kinds, not otherwise provided for 

369,919 28 

129,471 75 

35.00 

54 

Gold and silver, manufactures of.. 

339,670 76 

113,707 81 

33.48 

55 

Soap. 

304,118 77 

136,810 63 

44.99 

56 

India-rubber, manufactures of. 

283,956 79 

91,333 29 

32.16 

57 

Oils, vegetable, volatile or essen- 





tial. 

257,140 07 

83,233 42 

32.37 

58 

Clay. 

$204,741 89 

$107,310 17 

52.41 

59 

Copper, and manufactures of. 

191,285 02 

65,210 16 

34.09 

60 

All other dutiable articles. 

7,053,513 10 

2,150,634 71 

30.36 


Total dutiable. 

493,916,383 81 

209,659,698 86 

42.45 


Total free of duty. 

206,913,289 47 




Additional and discriminat- 




ing duty. 


977,594 51 







Total. 

700,829,673 28 

210,637, 293 37 

29.92 


Of the total duties collected on imports 22.02 per cent, was collected on sugar, 
molasses, and confectionei-y, 15.42 per cent, on wool and manufactures thereof, 
10.29 per cent, on iron and steel and manufactures thereof, 9.37 per cent, on 
manufactures of silk, 5.84 per cent, on manufactures of cotton, and 3.62 per cent, 
on flax and manufactures thereof. 

The aggregate amount of duties collected on the seven commodities and 
classes of commodities just mentioned was $134,557,435.69, and constituted 64.18 
per cent, of the total amount of duties collected on imported merchandise en¬ 
tered for consumption. 

























































15 


B. 

An exhibit of the average daily wages paid to employes in the various occu¬ 
pations herinafter named in Pennsylvania for the years specified, as com¬ 
puted by the bureau of industrial statistics of Pennsylvania for 1883. 

BITUMINOUS COAL. 


Occupations. 

1875. 

1876. 

1877. 

1878. 

1879. 

1880. 

1881. 

1882. 

Miners. 

$2 47 

$2 59 

SI 65 

SI 

88 

SI 74 

S2 

25 

S2 16 

S2 16 

Laborers, inside. 

1 90 

1 71 

1 64 

1 

47 

1 42 

1 

69 

1 81 

1 81 

Laborers, outside. 

1 76 

1 52 

1 34 

1 

47 

1 42 

1 

46 

1 63 

1 63 

Mule-drivers. 

1 81 

1 61 

1 57 

1 

46 

1 41 

1 

63 

1 80 

1 80 

Blacksmiths. 

2 29 

2 15 

1 80 

1 

91 

1 75 

1 

96 

2 16 

2 16 

Carpenters. 

2 29 

2 15 

1 80 

1 

90 

1 75 

1 

84 

2 06 

2 06 

Mining overseers. 

3 04 

2 84 

2 40 

2 

64 

2 56 

2 

63 

2 60 

2 60 

Clerks. 




2 

38 


1 

93 

2 11 

2 11 

Boys. 

97 

87 

90 


77 

68 


79 

84 

84 


BLAST-PUKNACES. 


Occupations. 

1878. 

1879. 

1880. 

1881. 

1882, 

Foundery m en. 

S2 11 

S2 48 

S2 70 

S2 92 

S2 92 

Keepers. 

Keepers’ helpers. 

1 40 

1 50 

1 56 

1 75 

1 75 

1 15 

1 40 

1 ;i5 

1 55 

1 55 

Fillers. 

1 15 

1 61 

1 33 

1 63 

1 63 

Cindermen. 

BarroAvmen.. 

1 16 

1 32 

1 26 

1 18 

1 43 

1 31 

1 43 
1 31 

Hot-blastinen. 

i 26 


1 45 

1 62 

1 62 

Weighmen. 

1 40 


1 39 

1 55 

1 55 

Engineers. 

1 24 

i ifio 

1 67 

1 69 

1 69 

Metal-carriers. 

1 25 

1 41 

1 41 

1 68 

1 68 

Firemen. 

1 06 

- 1 38 

1 30 

1 52 

1 52 

Blacksmiths. 

1 34 

1 37 

1 63 

1 80 

1 80 

Carpenters. 

1 49 

1 52 

1 60 

1 69 

1 69 

Laborers. 

96 

1 19 

1 05 

1 15 

1 15 

Foreman. 

2 00 


2 11 

2 06 

2 06 

Other employes. 

1 50 

1 50 

1 36 

1 45 

1 45 


ROLLING-MILLS. • 


Occupations. 

1875. 

1876. 

1877. 

1878. 

1879. 

1880. 

1881. 

1882. 

Puddlers. 

$3 60 

$3 00 

$3 30 

$3 30 

$3 30 

$3 57 

S3 59 

S3 59 

Puddlers’ helpers. 

2 25 

1 90 

2 00 

2 00 

2 00 

2 20 

2 23 

2 23 

Heaters. 

5 60 

4 00 

4 00 

4 70 

4 70 

5 20 

5 01 

5 01 

Heaters’ helpers. 

2 00 

1 63 

1 63 

1 80 

1 74 

1 75 

1 74 

1 74 

Rollers. 

8 00 

7 24 

6 50 

6 40 

6 40 

7 00 

7 24 

7 24 

Roughers. 

3 30 

2 65 

2 25 

2 25 

2 70 

3 25 

3 15 

3 15 

Catchers. 

3 30 

2 65 

2 2;5 

2 95 

2 70 

3 25 

3 36 

3 36 

Hookers. 

1 75 

1 52 

1 25 

1 44 

1 60 

1 44 

1 50 

1 50 

Shearmen. 

1 43 

1 88 

1 75 

1 60 

1 62 

1 60 

1 74 

1 74 

Engineers. 

2 54 

2 66 

1 83 

2 37 

2 57 

1 87 

2 66 

2 66 

Millwrights. 




3 03 

2 76 

9. 9A 

2 92 

2 92 

Blacksmiths. 

2 24 

2 78 

2 55 

2 48 

2 44 

i 83 

2 67 

2 67 

Machinists. 

2 56 

2 64 

2 75 

2 51 

2 37 

2 50 

2 50 

2 50 

Nailers. 




6 25 

6 00 


8 00 

8 00 

Feeders. 



2 00 

2 12 

1 50 


2 00 

2 00 

Firemen. 


1 70 

1 66 

1 64 

1 55 

1 29 

1 74 

1 74 

Laborers. 

i 12 

1 28 

1 25 

1 12 

1 27 

1 14 

1 31 

1 31 

Boys. 

75 

62 

75 

69 

90 

68 

79 

79 


o 







































































































THE AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE. 



SPEECH 


HON. WARNER MILLER 

OW NEW YORK, 


IN THB 


SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 


Monday, May 5, 1884. 



WASHINGTON. 

1884 . 







8 P E E O H 


OP 

HON. WAENEK MILLER. 


The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, having under consideration the bill 
(S. 1448) to remove certain burdens on the American merchant marine and en¬ 
courage the American foreign carrying trade— 

Mr. MILLER, of New York, said; 

Mr. President : For twenty years past our merchant marine has been 
gradually but steadily declining. The legislative department of our 
Government during those years has been constantly discussing the causes 
which have led to its decline. From year to year those discussions have 
come up and have ended in nothing. The discussions have been taken 
up by the public press, by the magazines, but thus far it has resulted 
only in an attempt to discover the causes of the decline. 

Two years ago, as a member of the Commerce Committee of this 
body, I had the honor of reporting to the Senate a resolution creating a 
joint committee of the two Houses, with power to sit during the recess 
and investigate the causes of the decline of the American merchant ma¬ 
rine, and also to propose measures for its revival. The committee was 
appointed and sat for a long time during the recess two years ago, and 
reported to this body and to the other House what the committee in 
their judgment believed to be the causes of the decline and also what 
they believed would be remedies for the evil. 

The Commerce Committee of this body took up that report and pre¬ 
sented to the last session of the Forty-seventh Congress an extensive 
bill for the relief of the American merchant marine. That bill passed 
the Senate and a similar bill passed the other House, but at the close 
of the session either bill failed to become a law by the two Houses fail¬ 
ing to agree on the various amendments w'hich had been made. 

At the beginning of this session of Congress the Commerce Commit¬ 
tee took up the question where it had left it and prepared and pre¬ 
sented to this body another bill very similar to that which was presented 
to the last Congress, but in the judgment of the committee improved 
in many respects. This bill has to do only with propositions which 
tend to revive the American merchant marine. We no longer pro¬ 
pose to continue the discussion as to what has led to its decline. 
That contest has been going on quite long enough, one side of the 
Chamber charging that the great destruction, the great decline of the 
American merchant marine was caused by the late war, while our 
friends upon the other side have not been willing to acknowledge that 
their prowess did so much to destroy it as we have held upon this side. 
Doubtless it may be well for the time being to pass over the causes 
which have led to the decline and to bring ourselves to the considera¬ 
tion of those measures which it is believed will tend to its revival and 
its advancement. 

The bill which is now under consideration had, I believe, the unani¬ 
mous support of the committee, particularly the support of the Senator 
from Missouri [Mr. Vest] who has spoken here upon it, and I confess 


-A 



4 


that I was greatly surprised when I found the Senator from Missouri ridi¬ 
culing and denouncing this measure as inadequate and of no avail. In 
the speech which he delivered he spoke of the pending hill in the fol¬ 
lowing language: 

To assume that the measure reported by the Senator from Maine [Mr. Frye] 
will, by remedying the present maritime system of the United States as to all 
these minor details in sailing a ship, remove the deadly blight upon our mer¬ 
chant marine is equivalent to the empiricism that mistakes some cutaneous 
eruption for the organic disease which is sapping the life of a patient, and seeks 
with cuticura and moderate doses of sulphur to bring back health and vitality. 

This is the language which the Senator from Missouri uses in regard 
to the measure, in the formation of which he had no small part. He 
took part with the joint committee in investigating the causes of the 
decline of our marine, he took part in all the discussions which grew 
out of that investigation, and he has taken avery prominent part in the 
making up of the measure which we now have before us. 

But while the Senator thus turns aside with ridicule this measure 
he does not fail to present to this body his own panacea for all the e\dls 
from which the American merchant marine has been suffering for the 
past twenty years, and he sums it up in one assertion, in one declara¬ 
tion, and that is simply “free ships.” 

If the American citizen, he says, be permitted to purchase ships where 
he can buy them the cheapest, then the American merchant marine will 
be revived; it will then be rapidly restored to the position which it oc¬ 
cupied during the years in the decade from 1850 to 1860. I am sur¬ 
prised that the Senator should have come to this conclusion, for certainly 
during the investigations which were had by the joint committee we 
received no such information from any of the practical ship-owners or 
any of the great and practical merchants of this country. I say almost 
without exception the leading shipping merchants who came before the 
committee said one and all that ‘ ‘ free ships ’ ’ would be no remedy what¬ 
ever for the evils which were then existing. This was particularly true 
of the president of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company, Mr. Houston, 
who came before that committee and gave his testimony in regard to 
this question. Let us see for a moment what he said in regard to it. 
When asked his opinion upon the free-ship question, he said: 

Mr. Houston. I consider it would be very bad policy for the Government of 
the United States or the people to attempt to carry on its commerce in foreign- 
built ships, for the reason that unless you build ships here you would never be 
able to support repair-shops and founderies, to make repaire as are required to 
be made from time to time. Unless you have ships to build you can not sustain 
your ship-yards; you can not separate the two. 

Mr. Vest. Is it not a fact that Germany bought her iron steamships from 
Great Britain and repaired them in her own yards ? 

Mr. Houston. I believe that is not entirely so; but Germany is so near Eng¬ 
land it is easy for her to repair her ships there. There were some large French 
steamers running to the United States, built in England, and when they wanted 
to change the character of the ships they had them lengthened and sent them 
to England’s yards. 

And so on in many places Mr. Houston, who is one of the best man¬ 
agers of our foreign ship interest in this country, and who has conducted 
the Pacific Mail out of its troubles into smooth waters, gave most un¬ 
equivocal evidence before the committee that in his judgment “free 
ships ” would be no remedy, and that “free ships ” were not even de¬ 
sirable for this country, for he held, as I have read, that the necessity 
of having ship-yards and being able to build our ow n iron ships w^as of 
greater importance to the country than the ability to be able to buy our 
ships for 10 or 15 per cent, less in some foreign market. 

Mr. Houston told the committee at that time that he had been sent 


5 


abroad by his company a few months before to investigate in regard to 
the cost of iron steamships in England as compared with the cost in the 
United States, and he found that the cost in the United States was from 
12 to 15 per cent, more than in England, and consequently his company 
decided to have ships built here instead of abroad. Not only is this the 
testimony of this gentleman, but the Senator from Missouri took occasion 
to read largely from the statements made by Mr. Griscom, of Philadel¬ 
phia, who is the manager of the Philadelphia line which has been run¬ 
ning four American ships under the American flag and six ships under 
the English flag, and who is also manager of the Red Star line which 
runs from New York to Antwerp under the Belgian flag. Let us see 
what Mr. Griscom himself says in regard to the proposed remedy of the 
Senator from Missouri, I read from a letter written by Mr. Griscom 
to the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Sewell]: » 


307 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, January 29,1884. 

My Dear Sir : After reflecting upon my talk with Senators Miller and Vest 
I have concluded to send you some copies of a pamphlet (in the preparation of 
which I assisted) which was presented and read before the Congressional com¬ 
mittee of 1882, and which presents generally my views on the shipping question, 
substantially those presented to those gentlemen last week. If after reading 
this carefully they will propound questions to me I will cheerfully answer them 
orally or in writing. 

The argument of this pamphlet was based upon our personal experience in 
this business, and can be supported by facts in such shape as may be desired. 

It must be accepted as a fact in any effort to reach a true solution of this prob¬ 
lem that while the first cost of a foreign ship is less than one built here, which 
increases the difficulty, still the continued greater costof running as against the 
foreign competitor is the important factor after all, and will make the admis¬ 
sion of free ships fail as a remedy. Of this I am confident from my experience 
of the business. 

The owners of the Red Star line will yield to no other American citizen in 
public spirit and loyalty to our flag, but in this commercial question their own 
financial safety would prevent them from availing of the passage of a free-ship 
law to resume our flag, unless this greater cost of running was equalized by some 
general policy by our Government. This is the practical exposition of the prob¬ 
lem stripped of everything but the commercial surroundings, and which must 
be met by Government aid of some kind. My views of the correct method are 
embraced in the inclosed form of a bill, modeled after the French law. The 
French Government, after trying free ships for an indefinite period, have had to 
enact this law as the only solution, and it would appear we w’ould be unwise not 
to profit by their experience. 

They have for half a century seen England supply them with free ships and 
then put on subsidized lines against them in every direction, until with free 
ships they have been beaten on every contested route. That such would be our 
experience if we expected to find a remedy there no thinking man can doubt. 
Liberal mail compensation w'ould probably be a step in the proper direction, but 
it is altogether too limited in its application to generally restore our commerce. 

England has adopted this plan, and with the cheapest labor in the world to 
mine the ore and coal and construct and run the ship she has wondrously suc¬ 
ceeded ; but we are diflerently situated. 

We have ore and coal and skilled labor for both constructing and running, 
but we must, to successfully compete, have general Government aid to offset 
the dearer cost of running. That is the whole question, ex(«pting one impor¬ 
tant consideration, the greater value of capital in this country. Therefore, to 
overcome the greater cost of running and the higher value of capital here, our 
remedy, to be successful, must be more searching than that adopted by Great 
Britain, and .so the jiroposed bill inclosed endeavors to be. 

I do not w'ish to weary you, so I cease here. At your service, or your brother 
Senators’, to pursue the matter in any manner you may think best, I am, my 
dear sir, 

Yours, very truly, 

’ ^ O. A. GRISCOM. 

Hon. W. J. Sewell, 

United States Senator, Washington, D. C. 


There, Mr. President, we have the testimony of one of the most suc¬ 
cessful shipmasters in this country. Would it not be well tor the theo¬ 
rists in this country, would it not be well for the theorists in this body 


6 


to listen to the words of wisdom which came from a practical business 
man who understands this question thoroughly and has tested it in all 
its various aspects as a business proposition ? He tells us plainly and 
conclusively that ‘ ‘ free ships ’ ’ will not solve the problem; that if ‘ ‘ free 
ships ’ ’ were given to his company to-day they would not transfer their 
line of steamers that runs under the Belgian flag to the American flag, 
because they could not afford to run it at the increased cost and expense 
involved; and I believe since that letter was written and since this dis¬ 
cussion commenced here (I have at least seen it stated in the press) the 
four American ships of the Philadelphia line which were flying the 
American flag have been transferred and put under the English flag and 
are to-day sailing under it. 

Mr. VEST. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question? 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. Certainly. 

Mr. VEST. He reads a letter from Mr. Griscom, who commends in 
very fine terms the French system, the bounty system enacted a few 
years ago by the French Chambers. Now, I ask the Senator if the 
French Government does not pay a bounty to foreign vessels that are 
brought under the French flag; not as large a bounty as it does French- 
built vessels, but if it does not pay a bounty to foreign-built vessels 
that are brought under the French flag? Is not that the law of * 
France to-day ? 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. I do not so understand it. The French 
law, as I understand it, pays first a bounty for the building of the ves¬ 
sels in French ship-yards. The result has been that a number of Eng¬ 
lish ship-builders have transferred their plant from England to France 
and are there to-day building ships. The law pays a large bounty first 
for the building of ships in France, and then it pays a bounty of 30 
cents a ton for every thousand miles run by these ships in the merchant 
marine in France. Not only does Mr. Griscom recommend the French 
system, but he also approves in very strong terms of that proposition in 
our bill which proposes to give the steamers adequate pay for the carry¬ 
ing of the mails. 

I say then, Mr. President, that in my judgment it would be well for 
this body to lay aside theories, to lay aside mere fine-sounding phrases 
and rhetoric in regard to ‘ ‘ free ships, ’ ’ and to take the counsels of 
men like Mr. Griscom and Mr. Houston, the president of the Pacific 
Mail Steamship Company, take their experience, which has been learned 
at great cost to themselves and their associates, and base upon their 
judgment and upon the judgment of other large ship-owners and ship¬ 
masters in this country some measures of relief. If we are to be con¬ 
stantly dealing with mere theories and sophistry the American mer¬ 
chant marine will continue to dwindle and pass away. 

Neither can I find any reason for adopting the amendment of the 
Senator from Missouri to give us ‘ ‘ free ships ’ ’ in connection with our 
general tariff system. I am unable to understand why we should pro¬ 
tect manufactures of all kinds in this country, manufactures of iron, 
of brass, of steel, of cottons, of woolens, and of every variety, and that 
when we come to a ship, the great cost of which is labor, we should 
abandon protection. More than 90 per cent, of the entire cost of every 
iron going steamship in the world is made up of labor, taking the ore 
from the mine and the coal from the mine and converting them first 
into pig-iron and then into bar-iron and steel plates out of which the 
ship is made. So long as we maintain our present system, so long at 
least we should maintain a fair tariff upon ships. 

For one, I am willing to say here, and to make this proposition if it 


7 


should meet with favor on the other side, that instead of the present 
navigation laws, which prevent any ship from having an American reg¬ 
istry unless it he built in America, I shall be entirely willing to pro¬ 
vide that ships may be imported like other manufactured articles, 
simply putting upon them a fair rate of duty, either so much per ton 
of registry or a certain percentage ad valorem upon their cost, and that 
would put them on a par with all other manufactures in this country 
and protect the labor which is used in their production. 

Mr. BECK. In connection with that proposition, will the Senator 
allow me to ask him to explain to the Senate how we could put them 
on an equality then with their foreign competitors to whom we have 
by treaty given the same rights as our own people ? Under our tariff 
protection one American is competing with another, and all are pro¬ 
tected alike; but how are you going to import a ship under a tariff-tax 
to compete under a high duty with the cheap free ships of the German, 
the Frenchman, and the Englishman? How can our men compete 
if they have to pay that additional cost? That is the difficulty I see 
about it. 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. The recommendation of Mr. Griscom 
is that we shall adopt the bounty system, and the recommendation of 
Mr. Houston is that we should allow a liberal pay for the carrying of 
foreign mails. Certainly we can not expect that our shipping can live 
in free and open competition with that of Great Britain or France or 
Germany, whose labor costs them from 50 to 60 per cent, less than it 
does in our merchant marine. Unless the Government is willing to do 
something, unless the Government is willing to spend some money 
upon it in the way of bounties or subsidies,’ if you choose to use that 
offensive word, then there can be no question but that the decline of 
the American merchant marine must go on. If it is of not enough 
value to our country to foster it and to pay for it, then we can not have 
it. There can be no question about that. 

In regard to the protection which should be given to building of ships, 
let us look for a moment at what the cost of a ship is made up of; here 
is the amount of material used in the construction of a 4,000-ton iron 


steamship: 

Pounds. 

Plates_2, 535, 649 

Angles_ 750, 687 

Beams_ 289,386 

Rivets_ 126, 405 

Forgings and bars_ 270,726 


3,972,853 


of iron consumed in the hull. 


Iron castings.. 
Brass castings 

Lead_ 

Sheet copper. 
Boiler-plate. _ 

Bar-iron_ 

Rivets_ 

Tubes- 


The engine is made up as follows: 

Pounds. 

_ 746,252 

_ 52,769 

_ 5,231 

_ 49,816 

_ 506,723 

_ 383,209 

__ 39,944 

_ 51,588 


1,835,532 

















6 


The amount of lumber consumed is 786,462 square feet. 

Here we see what it is that goes to make up an iron ship. We 
have in this country all the industries which produce every one of these 
items. We have them in abundance, we can produce them as good as 
they are produced in foreign countries; but every Senator knows that 
they can not be produced as cheaply here as they can be in England, 
simply because of the increased cost of labor. If iron steamships are 
to be imported free, then certainly none can be built in this country 
and none will be built; and as we know that wooden ships are slowly 
but surely passing away, if ships are admitted free into this country 
it will not be twenty-five years before there will not exist in this 
country a single ship-yard worthy of the name, one that would be able 
in cases of emergency to build a 4,000, 5,000, or 6,000 ton ship. 

If you will go back to the debates which were had when our naviga¬ 
tion laws were paased, you will find that the founders of our Govern¬ 
ment and those who took part in those discussions gave as the chief 
reason for the navigation laws and for the prevention of any ship having 
an American registry unless it was built in America, that ship-yards 
capable of turning out naval vessels were as important to the defense 
of this country as fortifications upon our seacoast, and as guns, and 
armies, and navies. They believed it to be wise to encourage the build¬ 
ing of ships in this country. Then ships were built of wood, and we 
could build them as cheap as or more cheaply than any other nation in 
the world. But now the condition of affairs is changed. All great and 
important vessels either for the merchant marine or navies must be 
built of iron or steel, and if they are to be built in this country there 
must be some protection of the manufacturers who produce the ma¬ 
terial, there must be some protection of the labor that is employed in 
it, there must be some protection to the ship-builders themselves. 

Let us look for a moment at the amount of labor put into a 4,000- 
ton ship. I have here the number of days’ work consumed, which are 
accurate, as the figures are taken from the books of a ship-builder: 

Days’ ivork. 


Platers, calkers, riveters, planers, and filers_ 58, 750 

Carpenters_ 7 104 

Joiners_ 12, 207 

Painters-- 4, 374 


Total days’ work on hull of a 4,000-ton ship_ 82, 435 

Machinists, boiler-makers, pattern-makers, and molders_ 108, 500 


Grand total- 190,935 


If you pavSS your ‘‘free-ship” amendment, for every 4,000-ton ship 
that is built you are to give 190,935 days’ laljor to the mechanics who 
are ship-builders upon the Clyde, and you are to take that amount of 
labor away from American laborers and American shipwrights. 

I am unable to find any sufficient reason for repealing the navigation 
laws in regard to the admission of foreign ships to American registry, 
but, as I have before stated, in order that there may be some settlement 
of this question and in order that there may be harmony running 
through all our laws in regard to tlie importation of foreign manufact¬ 
ures, I am for one entirely willing to consent that an amendment im¬ 
posing a proper duty upon ships shall be passed, and then if any 











9 


American citizen prefers to buy a foreign ship he may do so, simply 
paying a duty as all other importers are compelled to do. 

I believe, in short, Mr. President, that the remedy proposed by the 
Senator from MiSvSouri is totally inadequate, that it can do us no good 
whatever; that to say to an American capitalist to-day “You may buy 
your ship where you can buy it the cheapest, and then put it under 
the American flag and take it and sail it in competition with English 
ships, with French ships, and with German ships, and ships of all 
other nations” is equivalent to inviting him to sink his money in the 
deepest sea, for certainly it can not be done without some further Gov¬ 
ernment aid. I believe that the bill now under consideration presents 
many aids, and if it passed into a law will do very much to increase 
and build up the American merchant marine. Without going into the 
details of the bill, ^ they have alreiidy been explained by the Senator 
from Maine, let me say that I believe the one section which provides 
for compensation for the carrying of the mails to be worth more than 
all the residue of the bill, to be worth more than any and all the sug¬ 
gestions which have been made in regard to our merchant marine. I 
find in yesterday’s New York Times an interview with Mr. Houston, 
whose testimony I have referred to given before the joint commission; 
he has been interviewed on this question, and he speaks knowingly 
upon it. He says in regard to this mail pay that if this section of 
the bill goes into effect, in his judgment, it will increase the American 
merchant marine 100 per cent, in the next ten years. 

That is the judgment of the president of the Pacific Mail Steam.ship 
Company as to the results which will grow out of the adoption of this 
ection. The Senator from Missouri, who I believe substantially ap¬ 
proved of this section in the committee, seems partially to retire from 
that indorsement, or at least he desired to connect with it something 
which he called the British system. I do not know why it is that this 
British mania is running all through the country and has even got into 
the Senate and is to affect our legislation here. There seems to be a 
desire in our fiscal legislation, in everything pertaining to our tariff 
and shipping legislation, to be able to say that this is the British law 
and that this is the British system. The Senator from Missouri said 
he was entirely williug to accept the section in regard to mail-pay if 
we would put it in force in the way that Great Britain puts it in force. 
Let me read his words. Speaking of the mail-pay subsidy, he said; 

That Great Britain has paid liberally for ocean mail service is certainly true, 
and her vast colonial system has made this outlay absolutely necessary, but she 
has never given sums of money out of hand and as naked subsidies, as is charged 
by the subsidy advocates of the United States. 

The rule adopted by the English Government has always been to advertise all 
her ocean mail service to the lowest bidder and to admit the world to become 
bidders. A striking instance of this is found in the history of the Peninsular 
and Oriental Company. ' 

That language is very strong, it is very clear, and it is very emphatic. 
In view of the facts as they are given to us by history and by executive 
documents, I scarcely know how to understand it. He says here: 

The rule adopted by the English Government has always been to advertise all 
her ocean mail service to the lowest bidder, and to admit the world to become 
bidders. 

In short, to take all other nations into her mail contract system. The 
ease and grace with which the Senator from Missouri skims over the 
facts which underlie this great question without disturbing them is as¬ 
tonishing. To my mind the Senator at some time in his brilliant career 


10 


can not have been less than an admiral of a merchant-marine fleet on 
the Missouri or the Mississippi. As I read the history of the English 
contracts I find it absolutely and unqualifiedly opposed to the statement 
of the Senator. I am unable to understand just what he means by this 
broad assertion that England has always let her foreign mail service to 
the lowest bidder and has admitted all the nations of the world into her 
biddings. Let us look for a moment at what are the facts in regard to 
this. 

Substantially her mail subsidy system began with the building of the 
Cunard line. A proposition was made for carrying the mails from 
Liverpool to New York. Cunard came in with his company with four 
1,200-ton ships in 1840. These cost to build about $200,000 each, mak¬ 
ing the total cost of the line $800,000. For the service of carrying the 
mail on these four ships between Liverpool and New York the Cunard 
line received the first year $413,000. The next year, finding that the 
service did not pay, that it was not profitable to the company, the British 
Government increased it to $550,000—70 per cent, upon the whole cost 
of the ships. This increase went on. The year after it was increased 
to $705,666, in 1846. Then other ships were put on of larger tonnage, 
and the subsidy was still further increased. 

About this time the United States adopted a similar system and sub¬ 
sidized the Collins line, but it led to acrimonious debate in Congress, 
and serious contest, and finally the subsidy was withdrawn and the 
line went down. From that day to this we have scarcely sailed a 
steamer under the American flag from New York to Liverpool. We 
have maintained the Pacific Mail, we have maintained a few lines to 
the West Indies, and here and there we have sent out a ship, but the 
failure of Congress to support the Collins line as against the Cunard 
line was one of the most serious blows which has ever been struck at 
the American merchant marine. 

The contract with the Peninsular and Oriental line was much more 
of a subsidy even than that which was given to the Cunard line. It 
went still further; it guaranteed to the company at least 6 per cent, 
dividends. It gave them at one time a subsidy of £400,000, or about 
$2,000,000, and then provided that in case the earnings of the company 
were not sufficient to make a dividend of 6 per cent, on the stock of 
the company the subsidy should be increased to a sum sufficient to do 
that, provided, however, that in no case should the subsidy exceed 
£500,000. That contract provided also—and I will not take the time 
of the Senate now to read it—that in case the earnings of the company 
exceeded 8 per cent, then the Government should receive one-fourth 
of all the excess above 8 per cent. 

It made similar contracts with the Royal Mail Steamship line to the 
West Indies and Brazil and to the eastern coast of South America. It 
made a similar contract with a company running to the western coast of 
South America by way of the Isthmus. It can not be said that at any 
time there has been anything like free or open competition permitted 
upon the part of the British Government. On the other hand, the 
British Government put this matter of mail subsidies for the assistance 
of their merchant marine into the hands of their board of admiralty. 
It left them free to do almost anything that they found necessary or 
saw fit to do at the time, and whatever reports they have made to Par¬ 
liament have always, so far as I know, been confirmed. 

Now let us look at one of these contracts which the Senator tells us 
have been open to the bidding of the world and have always been let 


11 


to the lowest bidder. I read from the report of the postmaster-general 
of Great Britain of 1878, the official document: 

The arrangements for the conveyance of mails from this country to the United 
States have been again the subject of negotiation. 

Not of letting or contract. 

Toward the end of last year the owners of the three principal lines of steam- 
vessels engaged in the transatlantic trade represented to the post-office that, 
owing to diminished receipts from other sources, they could no longer consent 
to carry mails for the amount of sea-postage which had been paid to them for 
the service during the previous eleven months, the sum thus received not con¬ 
stituting in their opinion a fair contribution toward their working expenses, 
including those incurred through the ships having to wait for the mails ^.t 
Queenstown, often for many hours. Finding that it would be impossible to 
maintain a really efficient mail service without their co-operation, I eventually 
arranged— 

Now look at this language-^ 

with the Cunard, Inman, and White Star companies to increase the rate of pay¬ 
ment from 2s. 4d. to 4s. a pound for letters, and from 2d. to 4d. a pound for printed 
papers and patterns. 

An increase of almost 100 per cent, made by the Postmaster-General 
upon a negotiation with the Cunard, White Star, and Inman lines, 
without any letting, without any bidding, without any competition of 
any kind whatever, and for what purpose? Simply because these com¬ 
panies had found that for that year the general business of freight and 
passengers had run down and they were not able to make their ex¬ 
penses, The board of admiralty, represented by the postmaster-general, 
with the treasury of England back of them, came to the assistance of 
these companies in 1878 and increased their mail-pay upon printed mat¬ 
ter 100 per cent, and upon letters almost 100 per cent. That, we are 
told, is the free-bidding and contract system of England. The fact is 
that the English Government has stood behind her steamships as a 
guarantor for the past fifty j’^ears, and whenever a line has met with 
disaster, whenever its business has fallen off, the British treasury has 
been opened and more money has been poured into the treasury of the 
company in order that it might continue its business and compete with 
other lines. He goes on to say further: 

The contract with the Pacific Steam Navigation Company for the conveyance 
of mails from this country to the west coast of South America has been renewed 
from the 1st of July, 1878, on greatly reduced terms; and in anticipation that 
Chili and perhaps some of the other states of South America will shortly apply 
for admission into the General Postal Union, I have agreed with the Pacific 
Company for the conveyance of the outward mails only, leaving the countries 
on the other side to provide for the conveyance of their mails to England. 

Is there anything of free competition and letting all the nations of 
the world into this business ? Not at all. Let us look a little further 
at the report of the British postmaster-general in regard to these con¬ 
tracts and see how free they are. Here is the report for the next year, 
1879. It says: 

The contract of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company for the conveyance of 
West India mails being about to terminate on the 31st December next, I have 
entered into a new contract with the company for another term of years, the 
services to be performed being similar to those under the present contract, but 
with an increase of speed (from eleven to eleven and one-half knots an hour) 
on the main line between this country and St. Thomas, and between this country 
and Barbados. The subsidy is to be £30,000 a year, or £6,759 less than before. 

I have also entered into a new contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam 
Navigation Company for the conveyance of mails to India and China for a fur¬ 
ther period of eight years from the 1st February, 1880— 

That contract is still running, having four years to run— 
at the reduced subsidy of £370,000 a year, being £60,000 less than the sum now 
paid. 


12 


So much for the free letting of contracts by the English Government. 
Here is also the report of 1880, in which the British postmaster-general 
says in regard to the contracts for the foreign mails: 

The new contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Com¬ 
pany for conveyance of India and China mails, which was announced in the last 
report, came into operation on the 1st of February, 1880. It provides for services 
at increased rates of speed between Brindisi and Alexandria, Suez and Bombay, 
and Suez and Shanghai; and the whole of the mails for these lines being now 
forwarded via Brindisi, the subsidiary line of packets between Southampton and 
Suez has been withdrawn. 

At one time the board of admiralty opened some bids for the foreign 
mails to general competition. The results were not satisfactory. They 
were not satisfactory to the English people nor to the English Parlia¬ 
ment, and it was at once abandoned, and it has never been, up to the 
present time, reopened, and to-day ther^ is no such thing as free com¬ 
petition in the foreign mail service of Great Britain. Let me read a 
little from the debates of Parliament by Mr. Crawford in regard to the 
proposed opening of some of the mail lettings to open competition with 
the whole W'orld. First, in regard to benefits arising from postal com¬ 
munication, Mr. Crawford says: 

Whenever postal communication had been extended the commerce has in¬ 
variably been attracted; in fact, the conveyance of the mails has proved a most 
efficient agency for increasing our trade in all parts of the world. 

^ >!: :)i 4: 4= 4= 

I for one hold that there are considerations to be taken into account in this 
matter which are wholly apart from the question of the profit and loss arising 
upon the accounts of the post-office. The difference is not considerable; but, 
whatever it is, that difference represents the whole cost to this country of the 
means by which not only the commercial but the social and political connection 
between this country and the world is kept up. 

Further ou he says: 

Noav, what I desire to do on this occasion is to protest in the name of the in¬ 
terest of the country and of commerce, and in justice to our companies, against 
the ships of the Messageries Imperiales— 

The French line— 

or of any other foreign company being employed in the conveyance of our 
mails. You may carry the principle of economy too far; such a course of pro¬ 
ceeding would be free trade gone mad. 

These remarks by Mr. Crawford were received with loud cheers in 
the House of Commons. In short, the attempt to open their service to 
the French and other lines for open competition was denounced in Par¬ 
liament and was abandoned. Further on Mr. Crawford said: 

I am convinced that the subject has not been sufficiently considered, for 
what would be the position of this country in the event of a war or any inter¬ 
ruption of existing relations taking place ? Supposing the Messageries Impe¬ 
riales, or any other foreign company, be awarded the contract for our mail 
service, what would be the position of our commerce in the event of our being 
unfortunately engaged in hostilities with the country with whose people the 
contract has been entered into, or even in the event of that country being at war 
with some other ? [“Hear!” “Hear!”] 

* * 4: * 4: * ♦ 

I am of opinion that there is a qviestion of grave national policy involved in 
our maintaining these great lines; and the French seeing this, it has been a part 
of their policy for years past to construct a commercial marine of their own, pro¬ 
pelled by steam, which shall enable them to compete with the large companies 
of this country. 

The French have seen what the Peninsular and Oriental Company’s ships 
did in the Crimean war. They then carried upward of 60,000 men from this 
country, 2,000 officers, and between 11,000 and 12,000 horses. We know, also, 
what the Peninsular and Oriental Company did at the time of the Indian mu¬ 
tiny. Where should we have been if its vessels had not been in existence then 
to take our troops and military stores? [“Hear!” “Hear!”] We know, too, 
what was done by another company in the “ Trent ” aftair. We knowhow 


13 

10,000 men were sent out to Canada by the Cunard line of steamers and other 
vessels at almost a day’s notice. 

And many of the Senators here will not forget that the service then 
rendered to Great Britain by the Cunard line was partly due to the 
mail-pay which this Government had been paying to that line after it 
gave up the Collins line. We had been building up that great com¬ 
pany with its great fleet of ships, and when we were in trouble, then 
this company, which had been benefited by our bounty, of course came 
to the assistance of the home government, as it had a right to do, and, 
as Mr. Crawford says, almost upon a day’s notice, they shipped 10,000 
men to Canada by that line. 

Mr. President, I have here in this report memoranda of nearly all the 
contracts entered into by the Kingdom of Great Britain for the carry¬ 
ing of its foreign mails. In almost every instance, and I think in every 
instance, at all events in all I have examined, there is this clause: 

The admiralty shall have power to purchase or charter any or all of the ves¬ 
sels in case of war. 

That is put into all their contracts. Could that clause be put into a 
contract with a foreign company if we were to open our mail-lettings 
to foreign steamships? Not at all, and I am surprised that the Senator 
from Missouri should have made the assertion that he desired that our 
mail-lettings, if we were to have them, should be open to the whole 
world, as he says the lettings of Great Britain are. 

Mr. VEST. What I said was this: while I favored an increase of 
ocean mail-pay, I wanted the American citizen to be permitted to buy 
the best ships to carry the mail where he pleased. I want the Sena¬ 
tor to point me any clause in any contract ever made by the British 
Government in which they required that the mails should be carried 
under those contracts in an English-built ship. I want him to point 
me to that clause, if he can find a single one, in which a British sub¬ 
ject is compelled to take an English-built ship in order to carry the 
mails. That is what you propose to do now in our country. 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. Of course I shall not be able to point 
out any such clause as that, because her laws are different. Great 
Britain allows her subjects to import ships from wherever they please; 
but her contracts are made with British subjects and not with all the 
world, as the Senator from Missouri in his broad language has stated, 
and I think he must admit that he was mistaken so fkr as that is con¬ 
cerned. 

Mr. VEST. I do not want to interrupt the Senator, but I assert the 
fact to be beyond any question that England did give a contract to 
carry her mails to a German company, and that she has now contracts 
with other than English subjects. There is no law of Great Britain 
which prohibits it. What the admiralty has done is another question. 
I speak of her general legislation. 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. It matters not what the law is; this 
matter, as I have stated, is turned over almost absolutely to the board 
of admiralty; they make their contracts with their home companies. 
They have at times, and I believe do now, allow the Hamburg line, 
which stox)s at Plymouth, to take the English mails; they allow that 
company sea-postage, the same as we do from New York, but so far as 
I know they have no regular contract with them beyond that. There 
may be throughout the broad dominions of Great Britain, surrounding 
the whole world, some place in the Orient where they allow their mails 
to be carried under some other flag than their own; but if so I know 


14 


not where it is. At all events their great service, which is performed 
by the Cunard, the Inman, and the White Star lines between the United 
States and Liverpool, by the Peninsular and Oriental line, which carries 
the mails to the entire eastern half of the world, and their Royal Mail 
line, which carries the mails to the West Indies and South America, are 
all powerful British corporations which have been in existence most of 
them for fifty years, and have carried the English mails continuously 
from the time of their organization down to the present time, and Great 
Britain has paid these various lines of which I have spoken, and a few 
others, since the beginning of steam navigation, for carrying the mails 
and for guaranteeing dividends upon their stock, in round numbers, 
$250,000,000; and we are asked now to put our marine in open com¬ 
petition with this marine which has been built up by fifty years of con¬ 
tinuous, far-sighted, watchful care of the British Government and the 
British admiralty. Mr. President, you might as well take the lambs 
tfom a flock and put them in wuth ravening wolves as to think for a 
moment that the steam merchant marine of the United States canto-day 
successfully compete for the carrying trade of the world if it is to have 
no bounty from the Government, if it is to have no proper and sufficient 
pay for carrying the mails. It can not be done. 

I want to call the attention of the Senate a little further to some mat¬ 
ters pertaining to these free and open contracts of which the Senator 
talks so much, and by which he says there is no prohibition that the 
mails shall not be carried in foreign ships, which is not denied. At one 
time the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company came into trouble on ac¬ 
count of great loss of property in ships by reason of hurricanes. What 
did they do ? They applied to the board of admiralty at once for a 
continuation of the contract, just what Cunard and the White Star and 
the Inman line did, as I have shown, in 1878, when they found their 
usual business falling otf; they applied to the postmaster-general for 
an increase in the pay for carrying the mails, and the postmaster-gen¬ 
eral increased their pay just about 100 per cent. Let me read a letter 
from the secretary of that company to the British Government in 1867: 

Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, 55 Moorgate street, 

London, E. C., 20 November, 1867. 

Sir: Her Majesty’s Government have, without doubt, become aware of the 
serious disaster and consequent heavy loss which has befallen this company 
through the results of the recent hurricane at and near St. Thomas. 

Full particulars of this event have not yet reached the directors of this com¬ 
pany, but they know that four ships, which originally cost £181,926, have been 
wrecked, and that two others have been dismasted, and a large amount of stores, 
buildings, and other property in the harbor and on shore destroyed. 

To replace properly these vessels and property an expenditure of not much 
less than £250,000 will be requisite. 

The court of directors have had under their most anxious consideration the 
course which, under these circumstances, they ought, both in the interest of the 
public service and of their proprietary,to take; audit will be manifest to Her 
Majesty’s Government that with contracts only having two (and to a smaller 
extent, three) years to run it would be unwise in the court to incur a large cap¬ 
ital expenditure, especially in the way of construction of new ships. Such new 
vessels could not be placed on the station for at least a year to come, and thus 
might only be employed for a little more than twelve months. 

The only course, therefore, available for the directors, in view of the termina¬ 
tion of the present contract, would be the expensive and unsatisfectory one of 
chartering vessels for the service. 

Under these circumstances, and feeling that the severe blow which has fallen 
on a company distinguished for the punctuality of its service, and its readiness 
to meet the wishes of Her Majesty’s Government at all times, will give it a valid 
claim for consideration, the court of directors have resolved to ask Her Majesty’s 
Government to grant the company a five years’ extension of its present contract, 
i. e., to the end of 1872 certain, and thenceforward to be at two years’ notice. 


15 


For a portion of the service this\v<?Lild be only four years’ extension, but the 
directors conceive that it would be more convenient to the government and to 
the company that the contracts for the whole service should become terminable 
simultaneously. 

He continues giving statistics in regard to the line, &c. This is signed 
by J. M. Lloyd, secretary of the company. This went to the British 
Government, and here is a copy of the memorandum that was made^ 

Write to secretary of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company that, under the 
circumstances mentioned in his letter, and which they had already become ac¬ 
quainted with, my lords are disposed to entertain the proposition of the direct¬ 
ors. They are, however, of opinion that it may be a question whether an ex¬ 
tension of the term of contract should not be accompanied with a reduction of 
the subsidy, and in this view they have instructed the postmaster-general to 
cause an examination of the company’s books, to be immediately undertaken 
in accordance with the concluding paragraph of her majesty’s letter. 

My lords reserve for further consideration whether any other conditions 
should be imposed upon the company when the contract is renewed. 

In accordance with that direction from the treasury, a Mr. Scuda¬ 
more was appointed as an expert to examine the company’s books and 
to report. The proceeding was simply this: The Royal Steam Packet 
Company had met with immense losses by hurricanes; had four vessels 
shipwrecked and much of its property destroyed. It at once goes to 
the board of admiralty and asks that it may have its contract, which is 
about to expire, extended for five years on the present terms in order 
to have encouragement to replace the property and go on. It is met 
more than half way by the government. The treasury department 
at once says it is inclined to entertain the proposition. It appoints an 
expert to go and examine the company’s books to see how much money 
they have made in the past, and how much they have lost, and see what 
the necessities are, and, in short, report whether it will he necessary for 
the government to continue the subsidy in order that the line may go 
on. This expert makes full report of the condition of the company, 
which I have here before me, but I will not detain the Senate to read 
the whole of it, because most of it is dry details in regard to the ex¬ 
penses of running and maintaining the line; but let me call your 
attention to its conclusions. It appears that this expert had already 
before this made a similar examination of the Peninsular and Oriental 
Company when they had made an application to the government for 
a continuance of their subsidy, and therefore he was very competent to 
make the examination. He says: 

I have examined the accounts of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, and 
beg to submit the following observations: 

t 1. The eircumstances and position of the company resemble in many striking 
particulars those of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, and afford a strong 
eonfirmation of the opinion which I expressed in my report on the affairs of 
that company. 

In the first place the ratio of each principal item of expenditure to the total 
expenditure is, in the case of both companies, so nearly the same as to warrant 
the belief that both are conducted upon sound and well-recognized principles, 
and that the reverses which both have sustained are due to external causes only. 

2. In the second place, the external causes of misfortune have been the same 
in both cases. 

Further on he says: 

3. With both companies a subsidy is absolutely necessary to the maintenance 
of the service required from them. 

I call the attention of the Senator from Missouri to that language. 
He tells us that nothing like a subsidy has ever been given to an Eng¬ 
lish mail steamship for the purpose of maintaining the service, but only 
proper compensation for carrying the mails. 

In my report upon the accounts of the Peninsular and Oriental Company I 


16 


showed that the revenue, exclusive of sublidy, which the company expected to 
earn in the performance of the services required from them would cover only 85 
per cent, of the exijenditure proper to those services. 

That is outside of the mail pay. The Peninsular and Oriental Com¬ 
pany had made only 85 per cent, of its running expenses. The gov¬ 
ernment had guaranteed 6 per cent, dividend on all its st<x;k and made 
it iip by a subsidy. 

The actual revenue, exclusive of subsidy, of the Royal Mail Company in the 
year 1864, the period of their greatest prosperity, amounted to 90 per cent, of 
their expenditure, but in the following year it fell to 85 per cent., and in the next 
to 79 per cent., whilst in the present year it will be barely 70 per cent, of their 
expenditure. 

Here was a great line of steamers running from Great Britain to the 
Orient which was earning only 70 per cent, of its expenses, and the 
British Government stepped in and put its hand into its treasury to pay 
the difference and to pay a dividend of 6 per cent, on the stock of the 
company. That is the way Great Britain has maintained and encour¬ 
aged and built up her merchant marine. 

It is clear then that in the case of the Royal Mail Company, as in that of the 
Peninsular and Oriental Company, the ordinary revenue of the company has in 
no case sufficed to meet and is now very much below the expenses of the serv¬ 
ices whieh they have to perform. 

4, Having offered these general observations upon the points of resemblanee 
in the circumstances of the two companies, I come now to examine more closely 
the condition of the Royal Mail Company. 

Then lie goes into a detail of the accounts of the ships and expenses, 
costs, &c., and the partial final summing up is this: 

7. As the directors have asked for an extension of their contracts, it must be 
presumed that they have reasonable grounds for expecting such a revival of 
trade as will enable them once more to earn a dividend ; but it is at the same 
time clear, I think, that they would not agree, and would not be justified in 
agreeing to any immediate reduction of the subsidies being made a condition 
of the desired extension. 

In the present year they have just made both ends meet, and if their subsidies 
be reduced their ineome will not at present cover their expenditure. While, 
however, I am of opinion that their affairs will not admit of any immediate re¬ 
duction in the amount of their subsidies, I think that if their contracts were 
extended they might fairly be required, in the event of their profits, during the 
extended term of contract being rai.sed, by revival of trade or other causes, 
above a stipulated amount to share the excess with the government. 

In short, be recommends the continuance or extension of the contract 
for five years on the old terms, simply saying that in case it should be 
found that they are making exorbitant profits above 6 or 8 per cent., 
then they might be compelled to divide the difference with the gov¬ 
ernment. In short, from the beginning to the end the English Govern¬ 
ment has been a partner in all her great foreign steamship lines carry¬ 
ing her mails, a silent partner, but one with unlimited funds, and which 
has ever stood ready to back up all the enterprises, to pay all the losses, 
and to give fair profits on the capital invested. This course has been 
followed systematically and thoroughly for the past fifty years, and it 
is I believe chiefly to this that England owes her great superiority on 
the ocean. It is to this I believe that she owes the greater part of her 
foreign trade, for wherever her steamships have gone with her mails, 
there they have carried the British merchant; and British manufactures 
built up British trade, until England has monopolized the larger part 
of the trade of the world. This is the way in which it has been done. 
I might go on almost without limit reciting and reading to the Senate 
contracts of this kind showing that instead ©f the British Government 
being a hard master and letting her contracts to the lowest bidder she 
has always stood ready to listen to the complaints of the companies. 


17 


has appointed experts to examine their books to discover vrhether they 
were correct in their demands upon the government, and whenever it 
has been shown that they needed an increased subsidy, whenever it has 
been shown that they needed the helping hand of the government, that 
hand has been reached out and has sustained them. 

If we had followed this course, if the Senate of the United States and 
the House of Representatives instead of striking down the subsidy to 
the Collins line, as they did, had continued that and had done one-tenth 
part of what the British Government has done in this direction, to-day 
the American merchant marine and particularly its steamship service 
would not be in the deplorable condition in which it is. But whenever 
the question has been raised here it has been met with denunciation, 
it has been decried as “subsidy,” and the press of the country has op¬ 
posed it. Thus it hiis gone on from year to year and nothing has been 
done. 

We come now with a bill which proposes that fair compensation, 
limited compensation, shall be paid lor the carrying of the mails in 
American steamships. It provides that they shall be carried by the 
lowest bidder at a price not to exceed $1 per mile. This is much less, 
as I could show, than has been paid by the British Government to her 
principal lines, and it is not even sufficient to carry on this service 
unless it shall be found that American lines can be established which 
will receive pay also from the countries to which they carry the mails; 
and doubtless this can be done. A few years ago it will be remem¬ 
bered that an American line was started to Brazil. It was started with 
a subsidy from the Brazilian Government of $100,000 per annum. It 
was the outgrowth of the visit of the Emperor of Brazil to this country 
in 1876 to the Centennial Exposition. The Brazilian Government, be¬ 
lieving that the United States Government would meet them half way 
and would also vote proper mail pay to any line which might be estab¬ 
lished from this country to Brazil, passed an act giving a subsidy of 
$100,000. The line was started, but nothing was ever given by the 
Government of the United States; and finally the Brazilian Govern¬ 
ment, disgusted with the treatment which it had received from us, 
withdrew its subsidy and the line failed and stopped. We all know 
the result of that. If that line could have been continued, or if another 
line could now’ be started to Brazil and to the Central and South Amer¬ 
ican ports, there can be but little doubt what the result would be on 
the commerce of the United States. A careful examination of the Brit¬ 
ish reports will show that wherever Great Britain has established and 
maintained prompt mail communication by her steamship lines there, 
almost invariably the balance of trade has been in favor of England, 
and she has sold more to that country than she has taken from it, and 
in that way she has been more than recompensed for all that she has 
paid for her mail service. On the contrary, if you w’ill take a look at 
the reports of our Government you will find that to those countries 
where there is no direct mail communication or where the mail communi¬ 
cation is only through English channels or through foreign countries, 
there the balance of trade is greatly against us and we are the losers by it. 

Let us look at the trade between the United States and the South 
American states. From Brazil we imported two years ago to the value 
of $44,488,459. We exported to Brazil the paltry sum of $9,159,330. 
From British Guiana we imported $5,946,429; to British Guiana we ex¬ 
ported only $1,973,422, and so on through the various countries, Peru, 
Uruguay, Chili, Venezuela, &c. The total stands thus: Our imports 
Mi-2 


18 


from all the South American countries were $76,736,983. Our exports 
to the same countries were only $28,927,097. Look at the returns of 
the commerce of Great Britain with tho.se same countries; the grand 
totals are as follows: Great Brihiin imported from the aforenamed coun¬ 
tries of South America $92,664,494, and exported to them $93,761,865, 
thus paying for all her imports in her own manufactured goods. 

Mr. President, there can be no doubt hut that if we had direct mail 
communication to-day with Central America and with all the South 
American states this balance of trade against us of about fifty millions 
would be entirely wiped out, that this difference would be paid for in 
products of our own labor and in the products of our farms. The South 
American countries are large importers of wheat, of provisions, and of 
manufactured goods, particularly of cotton goods of the common grades. 
How is the trade now done with South America? Almost entirely 
through British channels. If the American minister desires to go to 
Brazil to-day he will take steamer to Liverpool and from Liverpool to 
Brazil. If you desire to send a letter you send it the same way. The 
commerce is carried on through British ships that sail from Liverpool 
to Brazil loaded with British manufactures. They are there disposed 
of, the ship loaded with coffee, or with sugar, or with other tropical prod¬ 
ucts, and the steamer comes to New York, there disposes of its cargo, 
takes on a cargo of grain, wheat, or flour, or corn, and carries it to Liv¬ 
erpool, thus making it a triangular transaction, but England constauL 
ly holding in her own hands the trade of all those South American 
markets. 

I could read to you from this same report in regard to this contract 
with the Royal Mail Packet Company in this examination which was 
made, from which I have quoted so largely, the expert reported to the 
board of admiralty that the company .should not be allowed to make 
its voyages to South America via New York. 

Mr. McPherson. Will the Senator yield for a question? 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. Certainly. 

Mr. McPherson. I am somewhat confused in my own mind with 
re.spect to the Senator’s argument. I suppose he has made it plain; yet 
at the same time I fail to discover the force and effect of it. May I ask 
him, do the British Government subsidize any British ships between 
the ports of the United States and South America? I speak of vessels 
sailing exclu.sively between the ports of the United States and the ports 
of South America. If they do not subsidize them, why can not Ameri¬ 
can ships enter into competition with Bi itish ships succassfully between 
the United States ports and the South American ports ? 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. I can not speak of all the ships that 
sail out of England, because their numbers are too great; but I was 
speaking of the case of the Royal Mail Packet Company, which runs 
from Liverpool to many of the South American ports, particularly to 
the ports of Brazil. They receive a large pay for carrying the mails 
from Liverpool to Brazil, and the line is not directly between the United 
States and Brazil at all. If the gentleman wanted to go to Brazil and 
was in a hurry, he would sail at once to Liverpool and go from there 
by the Royal Mail Packet Company. 

Mr. McPherson. But the fact remains the same, I submit, that 
there are lines running betvveen the port of New York and South 
America; for instance, the Atlas line commenced with two steamers 
and have increased their tonnage to thirteen steamers, most of which 
have been paid for out of the profits of the line itself. My authority 


19 


for this statement is the president of the Atlas line, Mr, Forward, once 
mayor of the city of Liverpool. One of the principal owners is Mr. 
Forward. I suppose the Senator from New York wishes to do some¬ 
thing to revive American commerce, and I take by way of illustration 
a steiimship line sailing under the British flag Ifom the ports of the 
United Stiites directly to South America, and ask the Senator why can 
not an American line compete between our own ports and South Amer¬ 
ica with the British line? 

One word more, if the Senator please, and I will not interrupt him 
further. The bill which has been reported from the committee, if I 
understand correctly the Senator from Maine who has charge of it, is 
to strike off the shackles and place us on exact equality with other na¬ 
tions in respect to tonnage and in respect to all other matters. Then 
why can not an American line cotnpete with a British line? 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. If the Senator had listened to the argu¬ 
ments of the Senator from Missouri on the other side of this question 
he would have had a complete and perfect answer to that question, be¬ 
cause that answer was given in the correspondence which he read from 
Mr. Griscom, who described the condition of affairs in running the Red 
Star line from New York to Antwerp under the flag of Belgium and 
running the line from Philadelphia to Liverpool under the American 
flag. The difterence against the American ships in the lour run from 
Philadelphia amounted to $00,000 a year, or $15,000 on each ship, for 
wages alone. That was the difference between the wages paid to 
American seamen under the American flag and the wages paid under 
the British flag or under any foreign flag. Of course what is true in 
the case of the Red Star line from New York to Antwerp and what is 
true of the line from Philadelphia to Liverpool would be equally true 
of a British line running from New York to Brazil under the English 
flag. Her pay and her expenses would be proportionately lass than 
those of a line under the American flag. 

Mr. McPherson. Will the Senator yield a moment longer in that 
connection? 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. Certainly. 

Mr. McPherson. I understand the argument of the Senator from 
Missouri, as also the argument which the Senator from New York now 
advances, replying as he does to the Senator from Missouri, but we are 
met by the bill reported from the committee, which both the Senator 
from New York and myself indorse and support, which providas for 
doing away with that difference. There is no invidious distinction, 
there can be none, under the bill reported by the Senator from Maine. 
What, then, remains to be done? 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. I will endeavor, as far as possible, to 
answer the question of the Senator. He says that the bill proposes to 
do away with this difference in wages. There is an amendment to be 
offered to this bill coming from the Senator who has it in charge which 
proposes to change our law, which now requires that all seamen upon 
American ships shall be discharged when the ship arrives at its home 
port, when the voyage is terminated that then the seaman shall be dis¬ 
charged and a*new crew shipped. It is now proposed to change the 
law so that a contract may be made for the round trip, or for any defi¬ 
nite period of time, the same as in the English service; but I think the 
Senator will find that you can not get men to ship under the American 
flag, Americjin seamen, and receive anything less than American wages. 

Let us suppose a case. Let us suppose that there is an American 


20 


steamship sailing regularly from New York to Liverpool under the 
American flag. When she starts out upon her first trip she goes with 
American officers and with a crew which has been shipped in New York 
at the regular going wages in New York, which are substantially the 
same as those paid in the coastwise trade and which are about 60 per 
cent, higher than the wages paid in Liverpool or in any port in Europe. 
When the vessel has reached Liverpool we will suppose that a portion 
of her crew are disabled, that the master finds it necessary to take in 
some men. He takes in a few new men, English sailors, Norwegians, 
or whatever they may be, at the going price in Liverpool, which is 60 
per cent, lower than he is paying the rest of his crew. Does anybody 
believe that when that crew has returned to New York those men work¬ 
ing side by side, one receiving 60 per cent, less than the other, will be 
satisfied ? Does any one believe that it will be possible to continue 
them in service for any length of time ? Does he not believe that in nine 
cases out of ten, when they have arrived at New York they will desert 
and attempt to ship in other ships where they can get full American 
wages? There is no question about it; and while in a few cases a ship 
might take advantage of low wages in Europe, yet it nine cases out of 
ten, in my judgment, it will do no good whatever. The fact is that 
the Americiin flag the world over means higher wages to the American 
laboring man. It is for these higher wages that half a million of the 
lab<)ring men of Europe came upon our soil last year. They came be¬ 
cause they knew they would receive higher wages than they were re¬ 
ceiving at home. Whenever a foreigner sets his foot upon our shores 
he expects to receive the benefits which come from our system of gov¬ 
ernment. You may go to Castle Garden, where all the immigrants are 
landed, and you will find hundreds of men, farm laborers, who never 
in all their li\es received more than £5 per year for their service, and 
I will venture to say that every one of them in less than thirty days 
will be working on American farms for £5 per month. I know farm¬ 
ers who have gone to Ciistle Garden expecting to get cheap farm labor¬ 
ers; they have paid their fare from New York into the central part of 
the State and have put them upon their farms, and in le.ss than thirty 
days they have repudiated their contracts and demanded the going 
wages of the farmers about them. These they have alwaj’^s received 
and always will receive; it can not be prevented. 

Mr. McPHEKSON. Will the Senator from New York now permit 
me to suppose a case, he having supposed one, and he having supposed 
almost an impossible one? 

Suppose the American ship-owner discharges all the American crew 
when he reaches the port of Liverpool, and hires for a month or a year, 
or a term of years, as is not an uncommon thing for English ships 
to do. I have the authority of an officer of the White Star Steamship 
line for saying that, on one of its ships on which I made a passage, 
every member of the crew almost had been there for eighteen months. 
Now he hires that crew, a British crew, if you please, a German crew, 
a Scotch crew, an Irish crew; he hires them at the prevailing wages 
paid there. If the American ship-owner is to be handicapped by $20 a 
month extra because he deems it necessary, or expedient even, to em¬ 
ploy an American crew, he might just as well quit the ocean carrying. 
He is confronted by competition upon the ocean, and he must meet the 
competition on equal terms and not on unequal terms. 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. Mr. President, that is all we ask— 
equal terms. It is not possible to get that from the American Congress. 


21 


Mr. FRYE. The Senator from New Jersey asked a question which 
1 should like to answer. 

Mr. McPherson. I should like to have it answered 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. I yield. 

Mr. FRYE. About six years ago there was a line started between 
the United States and Rio de Janeiro, an exceedingly important com¬ 
munication, absolutely necessary for our manufacturers to send any 
goods to Rio de Janeiro. Dom Pedro proposed to pay that line $100,- 
000 a year for carrying his mails direct from Rio de Janeiro to New 
York. The United States paid that line for carrying the mail from 
New York to Rio de Janeiro about $4,000, which would make in all 
$104,000 a year. The United States would pay no more. The result 
was that Dom Pedro withdrew his $100,000 a year, and all that that 
line of ships received for carrying the mail was $4,000. The Royal 
Steamship line to Brazil received $1,500,000 a year for carrying the 
English mail to Brazil, and the Brazilian Government paid about $800,- 
000 more to the same vessels, making over $2,000,000 paid for carrying 
the mails. 

I have in my de.sk, sent to me by the Senator from California only a few 
days ago, a statement as to the line touching at New Zealand from Califor¬ 
nia. We pay that line, I think, about $2,000 a year, or perhaps only $1,000 
a year, for carrying the mail, while New Zealand pays that line some 
$75,000 for carrying their mail. New Zealand has just notified that line 
that it will no longer pay that $75,000 if the United States pays but 
$1,000. There is no sense in it, and they have notified the line that they 
will take otf the pay. Under this bill you establish a line between here and 
Rio de .1 aneiro, and pay that line only a fair price, not $1,500,000 a yea r, 
nothing of that kind, no sub.sidy of any kind, only what any fair man 
would say was a fair and reasonable price, just exactly what you pay 
your coastwise steamers, and your stages, and your railroads, so much 
a mile. Brazil will meet you half way and pay an equal amount, and 
you will be able to sustain a line between New York and Rio de Janeiro. 
Without a fair and decent pay you cjin not sustaiu it. That is my 
answer to the Senator from New Jersey. 

Mr. McPherson. The Senator from Maine has reported to the 
Senate a bill in which he proposes to give adequate compen.sation for 
the transportation of the mail. I do not approve of the act of a great 
Government which meets an American ship, takes the ship-owner by 
the throat, and says to him, “ You can not leave the American dock un¬ 
til you put the American mails on board,” and then robs him of the 
compensation to which he is entitled for carrying them. I approve of 
no such policy. No great government can alford to make its citizens 
work for less than adequate compensation. Is 3 cents per mile ade- 
(juate compensation, as was paid to the American Steamship Company 
for carrying the mails across the ocean ? Is 7 cents a mile adequate 
compensation to the Pacific Mail line for carrying the United States 
mail ? No, sir; by no means. As the Senator from Maine very justly 
stated in his speech the other day, the Government of the United 
States had made a million dollars and covered it into the Treasury out 
of the profits of the robbery they perpetrated upon their own citizens. 
I have no sympathy with any such course as that. I will support the 
bill that the Senator from Maine has reported, gladly and enthusias¬ 
tically ; but I go further. 

Mr. FRYE. I beg pardon of the Senator from New York for having 
interrupted him. 


22 


Mr, MILLER, of New York. Just how far the section in the bill 
which permits the shipmaster to make a contract witii the sailors for 
any length of time they may choose will go to relieving the difficulties 
which have been discussed remains to be seen. In iny judgment it will 
do but very little, and if it is to bring about a condition of affairs which 
the Senator from New Jersey indicates that it may bring about, that 
is to say, that all steamships sailing under the American flag to foreign 
ports will be manned entirely by foreigners and not by Americn-n citi¬ 
zens, I have no sympathy with it; for one of the chief aims, as I under¬ 
stand it, of the Government giving this money to increase our mercantile 
marine, to aid it and to build it up, is to give to us a class of seamen 
and oflicei'S who will be prepared in case of war or in any emergency 
to be taken into the naval service of the United States. If the proposed 
amendment of the law is to lead only to the employment of foreigners 
upon all our ships, then for one I shall hope that the amendment may 
fail. 

I do not believe it possible that you can sail an American ship under 
an American flag without paying American wages. If the American 
ship, in the case supposed by the Senator from New Jersey, should sail 
into Liverpool and there discharge its entire crew of American sailors 
and reship a crew entirely of English sailors at English wages, I do not 
believe that it would be possible for that ship to hold its sailors when 
they returned to New York. I believe that within a short period and 
within a very few trips they would all desert, and that the ship would 
be compelled to come back to shipping its crews in New York and to 
paying the New York or American wages. That is my belief; but 
nevertheless as the bill proposes so far as it can to relieve us from that 
situation, and to leave the shipmasters free to make their contracts for 
any time that they may see fit, I am willingthattheexperimentshould 
be made. I hope that it will not result in the condition of afiairs de¬ 
scribed by the Senator from New Jersey. 

Mr. McPherson. Will the Senator yield to me for a moment, not 
for a speech, but onlv to make a suggestion? 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. Certainly. 

Mr. McPherson. I am afraid the matter is not fully understood. 
I was informed by Mr. Forward, ex-mayor of the city of Liverpool, the 
president of the Atlas line, whose ships sail to the different ports of 
South America, that he paid his crews all alike. I asked him if he paid 
more than was paid in England for the like service. He said: “Yes; 
slightly more, because of the unhealthiness of the ports to which they 
run as compared with.the general business of English shipping.” He 
found no difficulty in shipping his men; they were Americans and they 
were of all nationalities, and he paid them but very little more than was 
paid by the shi[)masters in England for the same service. 

Mr. MILLER, ol’ New York. I have no information in regard to 
that, and I submit to the Senator himself that speaking upon the matter 
of the wages of seamen in the different lines we should be very accurate 
and we should have the exact figures. The figures have been given by 
the Senator from Missouri in regard to the Red Star line to Antwerp 
and in regard to the British line owned by Americans running from 
Philadelphia, and in both cases the figures show that the wages paid 
under the American flag are about 60 per cent, more than the wages 
paid under the foreign flag. I can not suppose that the Atlas Company 
or any other company of English shippers would run a line from New 
York to Brazil and pay full American wages. 1 have no doubt that 


23 


their wages are substantially the same as the wages paid in Liverjx)ol 
or Rio de Janeiro or any other foreign port. 

From my conversation with Mr. Griscom, whose letters I have rejid 
here, I have this memorandum: The Belgian line, which is owned by 
Americans, which has a charter in Belgium, receives a subsidy from 
the Belgian Government of $100,000 per annum and freedom from all 
port and light-house charges, which amount to $25,000 more. This 
American line, sailing under the Belgian flag, receives a bonus of 
$125,000 from Belgium. The wages paid upon an American ship for 
the ordinary seaman is $35 per month. Upon the Belgian line for the 
same grade of seamen the wages are $20 per month. This amounted 
upon the four American ships to $60,000 per aniium, or $15,000 upon 
each ship. The wages were greater than they were upon the four 
English ships. That, it will be seen, is equivalent to 3 percent, upon 
the entire cost of the four ships, which was |2,000,000. The difter- 
ence in wages under the American flag upon tins line of which we have 
heard so much is just 3 per cent, upon the entire cost of the line. It 
will be seen that it would be impossible in a close business, as the ship¬ 
ping business now is, that any man should live under such disad¬ 
vantages. 

What is the remedy ? One of the remedies is that suggested, of 
which we have just spoken, in which the terms of contract by the sea¬ 
men are to be at will and for any length of time. But I claim that the 
principal item and the only item of any value which will lead to the 
building up of our merchant marine is that clause which provides for 
proper compensation for the carrying of the mails. I believe that if 
the bill is passed with that clause in it in twelve months we will have 
at least half a dozen new' steamship lines running to the various ports 
in South America, in the West Indies, and in Central America. They 
will go there to bring back sugar and coffee and dye-woods and other 
raw materials which are found in the tropical countries, and of neces¬ 
sity the owmers of those lines will seek to carry freight back. They 
will attempt to make a sale in those countries of our own products. 
They will attempt to introduce our manufactured goods. They will 
be compelled to do this, for no line of steamers running to South America 
and having no return freight to South America from this country could 
live even with a large subsidy from the Government. The result will 
be that instead of a balance of trade being against us of more than 
$50,000,000 in South America, in less than two years it will be all 
wiped out, and we will be paying for our coffee and sugar with our 
flour, our wheat, our bacon, and the other products of our farms. 

It is this trade that we want. It is this trade which I believe the 
bill will give us, and I trust that the Senators upon the other side will 
be willing to take the bill as it is, leaving out the contested proposition 
of free ships, knowing that it will be impossible for us to agree con¬ 
cerning it. The bill has been made without touching that question at 
all. It relieves American ships from many of the burdens which novr 
come upon it. It relieves us of nearly all the fees of American consuls 
in foreign ports, which is no small item. It relieves the shipmasters 
principally from the expense of what are called extra wages in case of 
dismissal or discharge in a foreign port; it relieves them from the hos¬ 
pital tax, and it reduces many of the burdens which are now placed 
upon them. In the judgment of the best shipmasters and merchants 
in this country if the bill can pass it will within ten years more than , 
double the present foreign commerce of our country under our own 
flag. 


/ 


24 

Certainly we can not expect any great increase unless something of 
this kind is done. The competition is very great. There are to-day a 
large number of iron steamships tied up upon the Clyde and at other 
points because there are no cargoes to carry. If our ships are to go out 
into the commerce of the world they must go with some backing from 
the Government. They must go with some promise of aid and some 
promise that it will be continuous. It must not be for a twelvemonth. 
These contracts, instead of being made for four years as provided in the 
bill, ought to be made for at least ten years, as the English Government 
has made its contracts for long periods of time. It is only in this way 
that capital can be induced to go into the business. Certainly Ameri¬ 
can capital, which can be so profitably used in our railroad enterprises, 
in steamships upon our interior rivers, in manufacturing, in farming, 
and in cattle-raising, can not be induced to invest itself on the unstable 
seas unless there is more than a fair prospect of success, and without this 
aid I believe nothing wftitever will be done. 

Speaking of the competition which must necessarily come when our 
ships go into this foreign trade in competition with England, let me 
refer once more to the effort which was made to establish the American 
line to Brazil. When those ships were put on the freight on coffee to 
New York was $14 per ton. The ships had no sooner commenced run¬ 
ning than the British lines in competition reduced the rate to $5 a ton, 
almost two-thirds. As soon as the line had failed and had been with¬ 
drawn the rates went back again. Our ship merchants know that this 
competition is great and severe, and unless we are willing to give some 
aid we can not expect that they will invest their money in it. 

The Senator from Missouri, in closing his argument the other day, de¬ 
clared that our tariff system is one of the chief reasons for the failure 
of our mercantile marine. Let me read what he said: 

The great obstacle to the restoration of our shipping interest lies in the pro¬ 
tective system, of which the navigation laws are a part. The high protection 
and exclusive tariff has stimulated production to an abnormal degree, and has 
put up the price of labor and also increased the cost of living. Our ships which 
go out upon the ocean to compete with those of other nations are handicapped 
by an excess in first cost, and by the fact that they are loaded when they go out, 
but have nothing to bring back. 

I regret that the Senator is not now in his seat, for certainly this 
statement in regard to the amount of our foreign trade and the state¬ 
ment that the ships that go out loaded bring nothing back can not be 
borne out by the returns of the foreign commerce of this country. I 
make the broad statement, without fear of successful contradiction, that 
the foreign trade of this country, both exports and imports, has always 
been the greatest under a protective tariff. I say I make that broad 
statement without fear of successful contradiction. It may seem para¬ 
doxical; nevertheless the reports of the foreign commerce of this coun¬ 
try for the past fifty years will bear me out in the assertion. Why has 
it been so Because the protective-tariff system has made our people 
rich; it has made our farmers rich; it has enabled our farmers to grow 
large quantities of grain for exportation; it has enabled our people to be 
large consumers of foreign manufactured goods of the finer grades which 
we do not yet make. The result has been that under our protective 
system the foreign trade of the country has constantly and rapidly 
grown in volume. Except that there is a lull in business now, it has 
never been greater than for the past two or three years, and instead of 
there being any lack of tonnage, and instead of there being any lack of 
merchandise and of produce to go out, and any lack of return cargoes. 


25 


the business of to-day is nearly ten times what it was when the Amer¬ 
ican merchant marine was at its highest point. Let us look a little at 
the figures and see how near the Senator from Missouri is right or how 
far he is wrong. I have just read his language when he said: 

Our ships which go out upon the ocean to compete with those of other nations 
are handicapped by an excess in first cost, and by the fact that they are loaded 
when they go out, but have nothing to bring back. 

In 1835 the exports from this country amounted to $100,459,481; 
our imports in that year were $136,764,295. In 1850 we had grown a 
little in our foreign trade, which was under substantially free trade 
or a tarilF for revenue. In 1850 our exports were only $134,900,233; 
our imports that year were $173,509,526. In 1860 the country had 
grown, and our exports that year were $316,242,423; our imports were 
a little more, $353,616,119. During the first years of the war our for¬ 
eign trade diminished, but in 1870 our exports were $376,616,473 and 
our imports were $435,958,408. In 1880 the grand total is as follows of 
our foreign trade: Exports, $823,946,353; and our imports had risen to 
the enormous sum of $667,954,746. This was under what our friend 
sees fit to call a high protective-tariff system, which had been then in 
existence for twenty years. The next year, 1881, our exports were a 
little larger, but only a little. The exports were $883,925,947, and 
our imports were a little less, $642,664,628. 

Thus it will be seen that the growth in our exports and imports has 
been something phenomenal since the close of the war, and to-day, with 
the exception of the year 1881, the foreign trade of this country for the 
past year was much greater than ever before and was about eight times 
what it was in 1835. It will be seen from these figures that the tariff 
instead of reducing the amount of our foreign trade has vastly increased 
it. It has given us an immense surplus of wheat, of corn, and of vari¬ 
ous farm products for exportation. It has changed the face of the coun¬ 
try. It has reduced farming to a science. It has introduced all the 
modern machinery of agriculture, and it now has rendered it possible 
for ten men to produce upon a farm more than a hundred men could 
have done twenty-five years ago. Thus it is that we are enabled to feed 
our own fifty or sixty million people and have this large surplus to ex¬ 
port every year. It has brought money into our pockets, and it has 
made us able to consume more of the luxuries of Europe, more of its 
fine manufactures and of its art manufactures, than ever before, and 
to-day our foreign trade, both export and import, is fully ten times 
what it was when the American merchant marine was carrying 85 per 
cent, of our entire foreign commerce. 

No; instead of the tariff having been the cause of our decline, it has, 
so far as it has affected it at all, been directly in the opposite direction. 
It has increased the foreign trade, and if the American Congress had 
maintained a continuous policy of protection to it§ foreign shipping 
trade, as the English Government has done, barring the losses which 
we made in the war, the merchant marine of America to-day would be 
in the proportion that it was before the war. But England has followed 
one continuous and unvarying course. From the beginning of steam 
navigation down to the present day she has never failed to protect and 
build up her steam shipping trade. She has done this knowing and 
realizing full well that wherever the royal mail steamship went there 
it carried the English merchant and the English goods and there it 
created commerce for England. By so doing it has helped to build up 
the workshops of England, it has enabled England to reach every for- 


26 


eign market direct through her own channels and through her own 
merchants. 

Anyone who will to-day travel in South America, in Central Amer¬ 
ica, or in Mexico will at once see under how great disadvantages the 
American manufacturer labors if he should desire to introduce his goods 
into those countries. The entire importing and exporting trade of all 
those countries is in the hands of European merchants. The European 
lines come regularly to their ports, and il‘ they desire foreign goods they 
«in obbiin them in less than half the time from England that they can 
from the United States. Under such circumstances it can not be ex¬ 
pected that we shall have much if any trade with them. The result 
is that we are to-day necessarily buying all the raw products of South 
America and selling them almost nothing in return. There is but one 
way in my judgment by which this can be changed. That is to give 
to the American flag, to American merchant steamships, such compen¬ 
sation for carrying the mails as will enable them to go into competition 
with foreign steamship lines and maintain themselves; and wherever 
the American steamship shall go there it w ill carry the American mer¬ 
chant, there it will carry American goods, and there it will finally estab¬ 
lish a great commerce for us. 

It can not be expected, in my judgment, that this thing shall be done 
in a day. There must be a persistent and a determined effort, and 
there must be a settled policy by Congress upon which the merchants 
and business men of this country can rely. It is because we have to¬ 
day no policy, because there has been no promise given to the mer¬ 
chants or to our business men, that up to the present time we have done 
nothing in this great field. 

Let us, then, legislate somewhat in the interest of the business men 
of this country. Let us do something by our votes here to build up this 
industry, if it be w^orth anything. I know that some of my friends on 
the other side (or at all events some of those who furnish the ideas for 
the free-trade agitation in this country) have told the country over and 
over again that it made no difference to this country who did its carry¬ 
ing, provided it was done by those who would do it the cheapest. That 
undoubtedly is the logical conclusion of free trade—undoubtedly that 
is correct if free trade is to rule—but I do not believe that even those 
who are termed free-traders here will be willing to accept that proposi¬ 
tion and to stand upon that. Knowing that it is not in the interest 
and that it has never been the policy of this country to maintain a large 
navy or a large army, believing that it is for the best interest of the 
country and for the protection of the country that we should rely chiefly 
in times of trouble upon the militia for our Army and upon the Amer¬ 
ican merchant marine for men for the Navy, it seems to me that it is 
wise at this time to expend some of our surplus revenue in giving en¬ 
couragement to American shipping. Instead of looking about to see 
how we can reduce the revenue, instead of desiring to abolish the inter¬ 
nal revenue or to cut down the tariff, would it not be well to do what 
England and what other countries have done, and give some encourage¬ 
ment to American .shipping by adopting the clause in regard to carry¬ 
ing the mails? But 1 would be glad to go much further. I w^ould be 
glad to go to the extent substantially of the French law, of paying a 
direct bounty to all American ships in proportion to the number of miles 
run per ton. I believe with Mr. Griscom and with Mr. Houston that 
that is necessary if you are rapidly to revive American shipping. 




27 


Mr. VEST. Will che Senator permit me just there to settle a ques¬ 
tion of fact between him and myself? 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. Certainly. 

Mr. VEST. I understood the Senator to say that the French law, 
which he now lauds so much, did not give a bounty to foreign mail 
ships. I believe I am correct in regard to the Senator’s statement. 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. I think the Senator is not quite right 
as to my statement. I said that as I understood the law it gave first a 
large bounty tor all ships to be built in France, and then it gave a 
bounty to all ships run under the French flag. 

Mr. VEST. I ask the Senator now if he is willing to adopt the 
French system and incorporate it in our statute. The French law 
which Mr. Griscom alludes to and which the Senator approves gives a 
bounty to all French-built ships. Then it gives liiilf the same bounty 
to all foreign ships brought under the French flag. 

Mr. MILLP2R, of New York. Of course the Senator sees the differ¬ 
ence in the situation. Before we can arrive at that we should have to 
repeal the navigation laws in regard to ships, and we are not now dis¬ 
cussing that part of the question. 

Mr. VEST. That is what I am trying to do; but I want to show 
that the French system which the Senator approves of does admit for¬ 
eign-built vessels, and not only admits them but gives half the bounty 
to them that it gives to their own vessels. If the Senator will turn to 
page 226 of the report of the special committee of which both he and 
myself were members he will find a translation of the French act. 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. I have no doubt as to the correctness 
of the statement. 

Mr. VEST. The French act says: 

For foreigfn-built vessel-s the bounty is reduced to one-half of the above 
signed amount. 

Mr. Griscom himself, in the letter which I read some two weeks since, 
in discussing this question of the merchant marine, concludes with his 
remedy in these words: 

1. Adopt the French bounty system, or one approximating it. 

2. Admit for five years foreign-built vessels for the foreign trade to American 
registry. 

The only difference between Mr. Griscom and myself is that I want 
the ships admitted without limitation as to time, and he for five years. 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. The difference in the situation is this: 
France for twenty or more years has been going on under a free-ship 
law allowing ships of any nation to be registered under her flag. For 
more than twenty years she has been doing that; she has been subsi¬ 
dizing her steamship lines and she has found out that under that she 
was not making the advancement that she ought to make. Believing 
that it was necessary that she should be a ship-building country if she 
was*to be a ship-sailing country, she passed the law of which so much 
has been said, which gives a large bounty for all ships built in France 
and then it gives another large bounty for the sailing of ships, and it 
gives, as the Senator has said, one-half the bounty for all the ships 
which are under her flag, no matter where they come from. As the 
greater part of the ships now under the French flag were purchased 
from England or elsewhere, of course it would not be just to exclude 
them (as they are now owned by Frenchmen) from coming in for the 


benefits of the act; but we are entirely in a different condition. We 
have no ships to-day flying the American flag except such as were 
built in America. I am desirous of following, as I said before, sub¬ 
stantially the French system. That has been recommended to us by 
several commercial bodies, and I believe I can state that, so far as my 
memory now serves me, no important commercial body in the United 
States in making their recommendations to our committee of investi¬ 
gation or to the Committee on Commerce have ever recommended free 
ships as a remedy for the trouble. 

The Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco recommended a draw¬ 
back system, which is e(iuivalent to a bounty for building; and some 
association in Philadelphia recommended substantially the French sys¬ 
tem, which has been recommended by Mr. Griscom, of which I have 
spoken; and so all over the country various commercial bodies, largely 
chambers of commerce, have presented their views. In nearl}’^ every 
case they have approved of all the items that are conteined in this bill, 
and I believe I am correct in stating now that not a single one of them 
ever officially recommended the passage of a free-ship law. 

Now I submit to the judgment of the Senate and to the judgment 
of the Senator from Missouri, with this state of facts, with all the great 
shipping merchants, all the great ship-owners of this country saying 
to us distinctly, over their own signatures, that “ free ships ” would 
be of no benefit and would not relieve us of the trouble, and the great 
commercial bodies of this country not advising it, is it wise that we 
shall at this time attempt to pass any such measure? And shall we 
not take the measures which we believe to be wise and which have 
been recommended by all these leading representative men of the coun¬ 
try, shall we not enact them into law and see what can be done? As 
I was saying before the Senator from Missouri interrupted me, I believe 
it would be wise to take some of this large surplus of which we hear 
so much and use it as a fund to encourage and advance the American 
merchant marine. This measure which we have proposed in regard to 
mail-pay provides simply that we may expend in this service what we 
receive from the foreign mail service. It amounts in round numbers 
tu about a million and a half. Instead of that we ought to be able to 
pay out in this way certainly as much as England is paying to-day after 
she has expended $250,000,000 in this service. Can we expect that 
our citizens can compete with her if we do not give them equal en¬ 
couragement and equal aid? I think not. 

Let me call the attention of the Senate for a moment to some of the 
other subsidies that are now paid by other governments to their mer¬ 
chant marine for carrying the mails. It is mail-pay; I call it a subsidy. 
I think the contracts which I have read made by the British Govern¬ 
ment with the Peninsular and Oriental and Royal Mail Steam Packet 
Companies, and with Cunard and others, prove that they are subsidies 
in the strict sense of the word, that they are given for the purpose of 
guaranteeing a dividend on the stock of the company and without iquch 
consideration as to the real service performed by the company. France 
to-day pays- 

Mr. McPherson. Before the Senator proceeds to that branch of 
the question I should like to ask him does he consider that the $100,000 
given by the Belgian Government to the so-called Belgian line is a sub¬ 
sidy ? 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. It is a subsidy in this sense: I sup- 



29 


pose the company take whatever mails the Belgian Government see 
fit to put upon the line; but the amount of mails carried, I am informed, 
is very small comparatively. If the pay was made to correspond with 
our pay, that is the sea postage, the same as we pay to theCuuard line, 
and the Inman line, it would amount to a very small sum, nothing like 
a hundred thousand dollars, and probably not even $5,000. 

Mr. McPherson. But it is $ 100,000 for carrying the Belgian mail. 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. Certainly. 

Mr. McPherson. And as an inducement for the line to be under 
the Belgian flag. 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. Certainly. 

Mr. McPherson, now, under the bill reported by the Senator from 
Maine, if I understand it aright, it will grant a very great increase by 
the United States Government over what the Belgian Government pays; 
in other words, say that it is 4,000 miles from New York to Antwerp— 
they will receive pay under this bill at the rate of $1 per mile, or $4,000 
a trip. It will be remembered, however, that that is but one way. 
The United States mails go from the United States to Belgium. When 
they start from Belgium this way, it is the Belgium mail. Consider 
that they run a weekly line, that being the condition on which the 
$100,000 is paid now by the Belgian Government. Then we shall be 
paying the Belgian line $200,000. Is that a subsidy, or is it only a just 
and fair compensation for carrying the mails? 

My point is this: Will the so-called American line, once so called, 
now the Belgian line, turn around and come under the American flag 
for $200,000 subsidy, as against the $100,000 Belgian subsidy? 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. Of course I can not answer that ques¬ 
tion; Mr. Griscom could answer it much better than I could. How 
many ships there are in the Red Star line I do not know; but if there 
are six or eight or ten the difference in wages would certainly use up 
the entire $200,000, and there would be no inducement to come under 
the American flag. 

Mr. McPherson. Suppose they do not pay the wages? 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. I hope the Senator does not believe 
that the wages of American seamen are controlled by the present law, 
or that they are going to be changed by it. It is impossible to do 
that. There is no sort of legislation which can be devised or brought 
in here which will materially affect the wages of American seamen. It 
may be possible, as the Senator has suggested, that we could get along 
entirely without American seamen, and that our ships could run under 
the American flag with foreign seamen; but it is not for that kind of a 
mercantile marine that I am laboring. I am not trying to help tha^ 
kind of a mercantile marine which shall consist first of a ship built by 
English labor, from English iron and English cordage and English lum¬ 
ber, and then to be run by English sailors, and the only thing American 
about it to be the stars and stripes at the masthead. I do not care to 
have such a mercantile marine as that. If we can not build our own 
ships here out of American iron and American labor, and if we can not 
man them by sturdy, hearty American seamen, then we had better adopt 
the policy of the theoretical free-traders and say that it matters not who 
does our carrying trade so that it is done at the cheapest possible rate; 
and if that is all that is to come out of this bill—-English ships and Eng¬ 
lish sailors under the American flag—I care nothing about it; I want 
none of it. 


30 


But I wavS arguing that instead of simply cutting down our revenue 
we had better devote some of it to the building up of an American ma¬ 
rine which would be in fact auxiliary to our Navy in case we should need 
it, and for that purpose I was going to call the attention of the Senate 
to what is now being paid by foreign governments for this kind of service 
for which we propose to pay under this section of the bill. 

Recapitulation of nations that are to-day paying submlief< to shipping and 


the amounts paid thereto. 

France. ^,477,000 

Great Britain. 3,750,000 

Italy. 3,228,000 

Brazil . 1,704,000 

The Australasian colonies. 1,500,000 

Austria. 1,030,000 

Russia. 1,650,000 

Sweden and Norway. 175,000 

Mexico. 806,000 

The little Republic of Mexico, with scarcely a port ujion her borders 
into which a ship can get, paid last year over S800,0U0 for carrying her 
foreign mails. 

Canada... $200,000 


And that reminds me of what I should have stated in connection 
with this attempted establishment of a line from New York to Brazil 
under the American flag. When the United States Government re¬ 
fused to give any subsidy and to meet Brazil half-way, agents of Canada 
went to Brazil and offered to that government that if they would ex¬ 
tend the subsidy to a Canadian line the Canadian Government would 
meet it half-way, and the result was that when our line died a Can¬ 
adian line took its place and is running to-day, and the Canadian Gov¬ 
ernment pays it something over 8100,000 tis a .subsidy tor carrying the 
mails, and Brazil pays the .same ainount. Canada pays all told $200,000. 


Central America. $100,000 

Japan. .500,000 

Germany. 69, (KX> 

Spain. 1,000,000 

Belgium. 250,000 

Holland. 363,000 

Hungary. 75,000 


22,867,000 

The United State.s, to \merican .ships (postage) a. 13,000 


Total, with United States postage. 22,910,000 


a The United States, to foreign ships, $230,000. 

^ That is what we have to meet. Nearly $23,000,000 i.s paid out every 
year by the principal governments of the world for the maintenance of 
their steam.ship lines. Great Britain has continuously followed her sys¬ 
tem of subsidizing her steamship lines for the avowed purpose of main¬ 
taining British commerce, to make a market for British manufactures, 
and to bring back to Great Britain all the raw materials of the world 
in order that they may be manulactured in her workshops and give 
labor to her people. 

This bill will give for this service about one million and a half dollars. 
Perhaps it is all that it is wise to attempt to do at the present time; but 
I am satisfied that if we are to expect any large development of our mer¬ 
chant marine it must be through much larger and more generous ap¬ 
propriations than this bill proposes. 
























31 


I hope, Mr. President, that we shall be enabled to pass this bill sub¬ 
stantially as ittiiime from the committee, and that the question of “free 
ships ” may be left in the condition where in the judgment of the best 
sailing-masters and best merchants of this country it should be left, 
where it is, save this, that as I have siiid before, I am entirely willing 
to meet the question of free ships on the ground of the tariff and to so 
far amend our navigation laws as to provide that any American can 
import any ship from abroad upon paying what may be considered to be 
a fair tariff upon it. 


C 



THE BONDBD-BXTEKSIOSr BILL. 


SPEECH 


Ol’ 


HON. SETH L. MILLIKEN 

* •' 

MA-IIsTK, 


IN THIC 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


Wednesday, March 26 , 1884 . 


WASHINGTON. 

1884. 





i ' v. 


' * •'••♦>■ -.7 . % ' • •' • + IT. , 




, t > 


> •. . V • • 


# i 


k ' 




I 


r :.,\ 


:'/■! •>." 
: V^- . ^ 






* V 

V 


. 1 ', I 


v:'-M ^ ■'•'1 i: ' ‘ 


> »; ‘ ’ V ‘ • * 


££] 


“ I' 

h 


-* 1 


K. 


K-‘- 


*• #’• 

rv' . 


.•t’’ 


♦.i 


i ’ ) “I L I 


> ' 


. V 


.F. T • r 




.K 







, f' 


>'** 

-.*■ - ♦ :f 

I* . 


/> 

^ ^ i ^ 


t 


: U U I 




I 


'J 

< i 


. ' 4 ^ 


y »/* T-t ': > 


* ,• 1 


i. 


M t ^ I 


' \ 




' • < 


>ti I 


aVrTAT/'i^i^/ri’Kn [.••o 


-A 


u 

m 


* * •,. 


r 


fi' 


. r 




*1 ■ 


i 


t 

. s 

/• 


> * 


r I 


Y . 




ii' 




7 * 


*}•■ Wl ' I * k • • 

•' . 


!•) 'r r» r fr . r 

— t I ft 


t 


f V"' • 


ft . 






1 ■ 


, ^ 




t . 


i 








vsi 


4 





HON. SETH L 


MILLIKEN. 


'Wlie House being in Committee of the Whole, and having under consideration 
the bill (H. R. 5265) to extend the time for the paynxent of the tax on distilled 
spirits now in warehouse— 

Mr. MILLIKEN. Mr. Chairman, I have been much gratified in 
listening to the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Hewitt]. He says hedoes not desire to have a tax imposed upon 
immorality. I do; for I am sure that the Democratic party will then 
bear at least its full share of the burdens of taxation. 

But what has particularly pleased me in the gentleman’s remarks 
has been their frankness. Unlike others who have advocated this bill 
and who claim that its opponents favor the repeal of the whisky tax, 
he states that he supports the bill as a preliminary step to repeal. He 
desires that the whisky tax shall be abolished, and with that end in 
view as his ultimate object he urges the passage of this bill. This is 
a logical position to occupy. I believe that if this bill becomes a law 
it will be found to have been but the entering-wedge to the repeal of 
all law imposing taxes upon whisky. It extends the time of the pay¬ 
ment of about $70,000,000 due from the distillers and whisky owners 
to the Government two years. If this is done the whisky interest, re¬ 
lieved of its present embarrassment and reassured by the action of Con¬ 
gress, will continue to increase its surplus. The seventy millions will 
become one hundred millions. Thus re-enforced, and with so much 
more at stake, it will come to Congress demanding repeal where it now 
asks only extension of time, and perhaps require a remission of taxes 
already due. The gentleman from New York says he does not care if 
thase taxes are never paid. He more than intimates that he does not 
think they will be. I incline to believe that his intimation will become 
a correct prediction if this bill shall become a law. 

I desire to say to the gentleman from Kentucky, who declared that 
the opponents of this bill were friends to the repeal of the whisky ta^x 
and that perhaps I was one of them, that I will never vote for the re¬ 
peal of that tax so long as the Government has to raise a revenue to pay 
its debts and meet its expenditures. I say this not as a temperance 
man. It is not necessary to say it as such. I would continue this tax 
as a wise and patriotic method of raising revenue, for if any method of 
raising a revenue is better than all others it is that which makes the 
burden of tax.ation bear most lightly upon the people. Such cerhiinly 
is the whisky tax. It is levied upon a harmful luxury. It is volun¬ 
tarily paid. No man need bear its burden. It touches not any neces¬ 
sity of life that goes in over the threshold of the poor or entem by the 
portals of the rich. He alone pays it who chooses to do so, and it is 
levied upon that which is the producer of harm. 



4 


I believe that to repeal this tax would be worse than throwing the 
money it produces into the sea, for I am satisfied that its restrictive 
power upon the sale of intoxicants saves directly and indirectly more 
to the people than the whole value of the tax. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania would abolish the entire internal-revenue tax. He calls 
it infernal revenue. Why infernal ? Is it because it produces a great 
income to the Government without increasing the price of any necessity 
of life? He tells us that it cost $10,000,000 annually to collect it; but 
it puts more than a hundred millions annually in the national Treas¬ 
ury. He further says that the enforcement of this law is resisted, and 
that it is necessary to make raids upon its violators to collect the rev¬ 
enue. This is true only in certain sections of the country where law¬ 
less communities diregard all Federal laws that are displeasing to them. 
In these same communities the election laws are resisted with more 
force and determination and with greater success than the revenue 
laws. Would the gentleman for that reason have the election laws re¬ 
pealed; and does he now recommend the repeal of a law which puts 
✓ into the Treasury more than a hundred millions of revenue simply be¬ 
cause a few moonshiners, who have some small distilleries hidden away 
among the mountains in some parts of the South, resist its enforcement? 

This would sweep away all law, for there is none whose enforcement 
is not somewhere or at some time res’sted. It would certainly lead to 
the repeal of all duties upon imports, because the Government has to 
keep a detective force to watch and occasionally make raids upon law- 
defying smugglers. Just imagine the venerable gentleman from Penn¬ 
sylvania following the logic of his position and favoring this proposition. 
It would involve a conversion on his part unequaled by even that of 
Saint Paul. He further objects to this law because, he says, it creates 
a system of espionage to which the people should not be subjected. Is 
this not true of all laws for the collection of taxes? 

The assessors of your towns and cities search the records to discover 
your real estate; they inquire into the affairs of your household to learn 
of your taxable furniture; they look over your goods, wares, and mer¬ 
chandise, and even put you under oath and force you to swear to the 
sum of your possessions, or doom you, in default thereof, to suffer such 
assessments as they shall chose to make. And the customs officials 
search your vessel, overhaul your cargo, knock open your boxes, pry 
into your trunks, break your packages, open the folds of your garments, 
reach into your pockets, and sometimes go even further than this, into 
your private affairs to insure an honest collection of the duties due the 
Government. The gentleman does not complain of this scrutiny, yet 
it is much closer than any which is exercised in the collection of the 
internal revenue. Indeed I think that from the honest tax-payer, who 
seeks not to escape from bearing his share of the public burdens, little 
complaint is heard against either of these methods of taxation. 

But to return to a more direct discussion of the bill before the House, 
I desire to siiy that I have observed with no little admiration the vari¬ 
ous directions from which the friends of this bill come to its support. 

Their different positions api>ear to be quite as inconsistent with each 
otl er as they are ingenious. 

The first proposition to which we are treated is that it is entirely^ a 
business question and should be decided upon business considerations; 
and yet the gentleman who lays down this proposition proceeds, in the 
course of his remarks, to urge the passage of the bill upon temperance 
gro\mds, picturing to us in frighful colors the drunkenness that will fol- 


T) 

low the taking of this whisky out of bond and throwing it upon the 
market. And yet, in almost the same breath in which he urges this as 
a temperance meiisure, we are told that if this hill does not become a 
law this bonded whisky is not to be thrown upon the market at all to 
create the havocof dissipation just now so vividly described, but on the 
other hand we are threatened that before the hixes upon it become due 
it will be shipped away, that gi'eat shrinkage will hike place during its 
absence, whereby the Government will lose a large amount of revenue. 
Well, perhaps if it should never return the people would not there¬ 
fore be greatly the losers. 

The second gentleman who advocates the passage of this bill reiter¬ 
ates the proposition of the first, affirming with great emphasis that it is 
simply a business question, but proceeds at once to appeal to the House 
for its passage on the ground that whisky has great and peculiar claims 
niwn the generous and charitable consideration of the country because 
of its high diameter as a tax-payer. He says it has paid into the na- 
ational Treasury during the last ten years a thousand million of dollars. 

But when I ask him, inasmuch iis he has stated to us the amount of 
taxes whisky has paid, to be kind enough to inform the House what 
sum of taxes whisky has made during the same period in which it has 
been paying taxes, he declines to answer the question. Indeed, he re¬ 
sents it as inadmissible and impertinent, says it hiis nothing tndo wdth 
the subject, and shieldshimselfundertheshadowofhisfirstproposition, 
that it is only a business question. 

And, again, the next gentleman proceeds to argue that this bill should 
be discussed and decided as a cold business proposition, regardless of its 
moral bearings, and without the indulgence of any sentiment upon the 
subject; but how soon does he jump that narrow track, run oil' into a 
graphic description of the bankruptcy and ruin, the poverty and sorrow, 
which he says are sure to fall upon the poor whisky producer and 
whisky owner should this bill not become a law. 

The picture which he draws of the tears of the woe-stricken wives and 
impoverished children of these unfortunate and hardly-used whisky 
dealers in its pathetic coloring is very striking and impressive, and 
my heart was keenly touched by his statement of the warm sympathy 
which, to his surprise, he received from some members who come from 
the cold climes of the North, whose people he had supjwsed w ere a cal¬ 
culating lot of trafficers in whom the milk of human kindness was 
frozen. 

I am glad the gentleman has come to the truth in this respect. He 
will find in the future as in the past, when the people of the South have 
been visited by floods and pestilence, that up under the icebergs of the 
North are warm hearts that respond readily and generously to every 
proper object of human sympathy. 

But let us see what this bill means as a business proposition. It 
amounts simply to this: It proposes that the Government shall loan 
to the owners of whisky in bond $70,000,000 on two yeiiis’ time at 4^ 
per cent, interest. That the Government is the creditor of the whisky 
owner; that this seventy millions will soon become due to the Govern¬ 
ment; that he asks only an extension of the time of payment changes 
not the nature of the proposition. If I owe my neighbor $1,000, due 
at any future specified time, the day when the debt matures the thou¬ 
sand dollars is his. If I consent to extend the time of payment that 
constitutes a new loan, which he is under no more legal or moral obliga¬ 
tion to make than if no previous transaction had existed between us. 


G 


The day when this whisky tax becomes due it will belong to the 
Government. It should then be in its Treasury. To extend the time 
of payment two years \^ould be as complete a loan to the whisky owners 
as if the money were taken out of the Treasury and loaned to them 
directly to enable them to carry their stock, as this extension of the 
time of payment is proposed to do. Now, what are the reasons urged 
why the Government should make this great loan to the whisky owners ? 
We are told that the situation is this: that the whisky men have pro¬ 
duced their commodity in large excess of the demands of consumption* 
that to force it upon the market will involve them in great loss and 
some of them in bankruptcy; they therefore petition the Government 
to come to their rescue and save them from the legitimate consequences 
of their own improvidence. To say nothing of the good or harm of the 
whisky business, how do these parties dilfer from others whose mis¬ 
fortunes, or want of foresight, or overreaching avarice have led them 
into distress? If this bill is to become a law, why should not the ship¬ 
building interest, so often depressed, come to Congress in the day of its 
disaster for help ? Why should not the farmer when his crops are short 
and bring him insufficient returns, the merchant when he is forced to 
sell upon a declining market and can not meet his paper of maturity, 
the manufacturer when low prices and dull demand stop his spindles 
and put out the fires in his furnaces, seek relief from the Government 
Treasury ? But it is said that the banks hold a large amount of this 
whisky as collateral security, and that if the tax is demanded when 
due they will be sufterers. Is whisky the only security which banks have 
held by which they have suffered or are likely to suffer ? I think not. 
A bank in my own town will be glad to have the Government make 
good quite a large investment in railroad bonds; and I think that in 
all sections of the country national banks, savings institutions, indi¬ 
vidual investors, and speculators of every class may be found who would 
like to have the Government come to their rescue and save them from 
the consequences of their improvident ventures. Why not they as well 
as the whisky dealers ? Indeed this bill as a precedent is full of mis¬ 
chief. It sets an example which, if followed, would make the Gov¬ 
ernment patriarchal instead of democratic, and reverse entirely the 
theory upon which it was established. A government should not at¬ 
tempt to exercise a parental or guardian care over the private business 
of the people. Its laws should seek to give a free and equally open 
and unobstructed course to every one and leave each to be responsible 
for his own undertakings, to reap their fruits whether of success or 
tailure. 

A.S a temperance movement I do not believe this bill will receive many 
proselytes. It does not provide against taking this 70,0(X),000 gallons 
of whisky out of bond. It only defers the time of taking it out and 
placing it upon the market. It is to strengthen the whisky interests 
by a loan of the enormous sum of $70,000,000 for two years. In the 
mean time the whisky men, relieved of their present embarrassment, 
reassured and restrengthened, will continue to produce their com¬ 
modity. 

One of the advocates of this bill says that the future product will 
l)e reduced if the whisky distillers control themselves; but what right 
have we to expect that they will do in future what they have not done 
in the past? Though they knew there was a large surplus, they con¬ 
tinued to produce and increase it. They complain also that the law is 
rigorous and the tax upon whisky exceptionally high. I will not now 


discuss the reasons for laying this large tax upon whisky. They are 
patent, I think, to every intelligent person and need no explanation. It 
is sufficient to say that the producer's when they distilled and the owners 
when they purchtrsed knew what the tax was and acted with their eyes 
open. They have been put to no disadvantage by laws enacted subse¬ 
quent to their production and purchase. Why should not they, like 
those engaged in every other industry in the country, while they are 
glad to receive the enormous profits be willing to suffer the losses of 
their business ? Is there anything in the character ofthis business which 
peculiarly recommends it to the fostering care of the Government—any¬ 
thing w hich indeed should make it in that respect exceptional and a 
favorite ? 

I know' the friends of the bill complain at the discussion upon our 
side of this phase of the question, but they have themselves put the 
character of tluir client into the case. They have claimed for whisky 
that it should receive especial consideration because of its great pro¬ 
ductiveness of revenue. Having done this, they can not justly com¬ 
plain of us for discussing its character as a tax-maker, I do not w'onder 
that they desire to have that subject let alone or very tenderly handled. 
Indeed I w as not surprised that the gentleman from Kentucky when I 
asked him how many taxes whisky had made failed to give to this 
House the requested information. Indeed if it were within the limits 
of possibility to obtain the statistics, and the gentleman had them in 
his possession, I doubt that his powers of computation would enable 
him to cast up the sum. It needs not that a man should be what gen¬ 
tlemen are pleased to style a temperance crank, it needs not that he 
should be a teetotaler or a prohibitionist, it needs only that he should 
be an intelligent man, observant of what is transacting in every com¬ 
munity, to know that the whisky traffic inflicts upon our people one of 
the greatest of all their misfortunes, and it needs onlj’^ that one should 
be a patriotic man and a lover of his race that he should most deeply 
deplore it. And when the gentleman from Kentucky w'as depicting in 
colors so vivid the tears and sorrows of the wives and children of the 
,whisky dealers to be made bankrupt by payment of their taxes, I could 
not but think how* much broader field he might have had for his elo¬ 
quent description had he attempted a recital of but a small fraction of 
t^ie pains and sorrows, misery, degradation, and crime of which whisky 
has been the prolific parent. 

Whisky pleading for sympathy is like the boy wdio having murdered 
his father and mother, when convicted of the crime and jisked w’hy sen¬ 
tence of death should not be pronounced upon him, appealed with tear¬ 
ful eyes to the court to have mercy upon a poor orphan! 

The gentleman from New York [Mr. Hewitt] says he desires the 
repeal of the w'hisky tax because he wants free raw material, and fol¬ 
lowing the example of his colleague [Mr. Cox] in discussing this bill 
treats us to a speech upon the toriff. What does he mean by ‘ ‘ raw ma¬ 
terial ?’ ’ Will he please define the term as he understands it? If whisky 
is not a manufactured article will he be so kind as to inform us what is ? 
The whisky may be raw enough, to be sure, but every item of it cost 
from the sowing of the grain to its production in the market for sale, 
except the interest upon the value of the ground in which the grain 
grows and the machinery by which it is made, is for labor. Raw ma 
terial indeed ! You may as well call cotton or woolen cloth, boots and 
shoes, silk dresses, and suits of satin raw material as whisky. More 
than 90 per cent, of its value is the result of labor. Herein lies the 


error of the gentleman and those of his school. They call wool raw 
material, yet who does not know how largely labor enters into the prod¬ 
uct of wool ? Those of that school who are builders speak of bricks 
and lumber as raw material, yet there is nothing of raw material in the 
one 'except the clay of which they are made and the wood with which 
they are burned, nor of the other except the trees standing in the for¬ 
est, All else of their value has been contributed by labor. Indeed, 
there is no tax or duty levied upon any raw material in this country by 
the Federal Government. There is no raw material except the earth 
and what is within and grows upon it, the waters and what they con¬ 
tain, the air and its forces, and u}X)n these the Government lays no 
duties. 

A protective tariff should be equal at least to the difference between 
the price of labor in this country and abroad. Will the gentleman who 
talks so learnedly of free raw material tell me why the larmer who 
produces wool should not be protected in his payment of that differ¬ 
ence to his employes as well as the manufacturer who makes it into 
cloth, or why he who converts growing trees into manufactured lum¬ 
ber or ore into pig-iron should not be protected by sufficient duties in 
paying American wages to American workmen as well as he who pur¬ 
chases their product and employs labor upon it for its further manu- 
fficture ? 

The fact is that they whoso glibly advocate free raw material are be¬ 
lievers in free trade in all manufactured articles until they come into 
their own posse.ssion for further manufacture, at which boundary they 
commence to be protectionists and so continue up to the point where 
they dispose of their goods. 

But I will not follow what I regard as a vicious practice of this House 
and make a tariff speech upon a bill to extend the time of payment of 
taxes due upon bonded whisky. I have done this only so far as to 
answer the gentleman’s assumption that whisky is raw material. The 
tariff I prefer to discuss upon another and more appropriate occasion, 
if I shall do so at all. I desire to call the attention of the House to one 
other point in connection with this subject, and then I will not further 
occupy its attention. Gentlemen declare that we must repeal the 
whisky tax to prevent the continued accumulation of a surplus of rev¬ 
enue in the national Treasury. They profess to be greatly alarmed by 
this surplus. I must confess that it does not frighten me at all. I 
think that a government which owes nearly $1,500,000,000 need not 
be obliged to search far to discover a place for the proper and judicious 
investment of its surplus income. If that investment can not be favor¬ 
ably made to-day it may be so placed as to be rejidy to meet the liabili¬ 
ties of the Government at their maturity. The surplus revenue may 
be in part wisely used to educate the illiterate we now have among 
us and those who are continually flocking to our shores to become citi¬ 
zens and law-makers. Indeed, I would prefer rather that every soldier 
whose brave deeds and generous sacrifices have contributed to save the 
nation’s life and secure to us this magnificent reunited country, proud, 
powerful, and grand as it is, should receive a generous pension from 
the surplus revenues of the Government than that they should be 
given to an industry which has wrought among the people so much sor¬ 
row, degradatiou, and ruin as the manufactuie and sale of whisky. 

O 


THE TARIFF. 


SPEECH 


HON. SETH L. MILLIKEN, 

\ I 


IN THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


Wednesday, April 30 , 18 -^ 4 . 




* T 




f 





’■ 

. -i /i *, 




y 


. n 


V 






vi. 

>. V 

v.v:* 

. •» .-■■ ; ■ 


ii] 


i .V 


4^ 







\ 


> 


":.„y/// ..M, 

^ v^' 


r. 


! - •>* 

‘A.:- 

■ V "• 'r 



r . . • - ^•- 

t 


« ^ 




>A 


I • r J 






•» 


S 

4 


• r 

i««4 


% 





r 


« 



' ‘ r-* ( 


t 


t 


\ 




*i. 


• A> 





■ < • 



r ;• .; 


. / ‘ 


« 

«/ 


, 4 • 

»* '■ 





h 







I 


• 4i. 
,« . »*'' 




V- 

■w *,- 


V ■ , 



. .-.',5 


/ 


k 


• I 




(« 

t S 


•••‘t 


4:'^' 


I 

( 


» 


‘.A '' 


. ' ■: ''v 


« ^ 
t . 


J'. '--v 1 . i-w; 

r •.‘rf *. 


SPEECH 


OK 


HON.. BETH 


L. MIL LIKEN. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5893) to reduce import duties and 
war-tariflf taxes— 

Mr. MILLIKEN said: 

Mr. Chairman: I shall not attempt at this period of the discussion 
to enter upon an examination of the tariff in all its details. To do so 
would be to repeat an o’er-told story. Already we have been treated 
to a plethora of debate upon the important items which make up the 
schedule of duties upon imports; but there are some salient points which 
I desire briefly to consider, and some statements have been made and 
conclusions drawn by the gentleman who has just taken his seat [Mr. 
Culberson, of Texas] and by others to which I wish to reply. That 
done, I will not further engage the time of the House and delay its final 
vote upon this question which the country so much desires to see set- 
tled^'^ 1 feel that the agitation of this subject is to be deplored. The 
birTis not only bad in character but inopportune in its introduction. 
So long as it is pending the business of the country knows that it treads 
upon uncertain ground, and it will advance timidly, shrinkingly, and 
hesitatingly instead of going forward with firm and healthy step. 

Capital is proverbially a coward. Above all things it is anxious to 
be assured against unknown perils. This bill threatens so many indus¬ 
tries in which capital is invested, menacing at the same time the re¬ 
wards of labor, that the sooner we dispose of it the better, I believe, 
will the people be satisfied. Indeed, I am sure that if the country is 
solicitous for one thing more than another relative to this Congress it 
is that we should stop talking, go to work, do the duties that are be¬ 
fore us, adjourn, and give the people a rest. 

So believing, 1 mean not to make myself responsible for extending 
to August a session which should have done more and better than we 
are likely to do and should have ended in April. 

I observe that some gentlemen who favor the passage of this bill 
seek to place the issue between curtailing the tariff on the one side and 
abolishing the internal-revenue tax on the other. This is a shrewd 
deception. It is a well-spread net thrown out to catch votes for free 
trade. But the net is none too well concealed, though the deception 
receives help from a few protectionists who are weak enough to fear 
that a system so sound as that of protection of American industries and 
American labor against the aggressive encroachments of British inter¬ 
ests in this country may possibly be unable to stand upon its own 
merits, and they would therefore make the system a revenue necessity 





4 


by throwing away more than a hundred millions of dollars which the 
Government receives as taxes on whisky and tobacco. 

But this is not necessary, and will not be done. Protection requires 
no such sacrifice. It can stand in its own strength. The issue is not 
between duties upon imports and internal revenue. It is between pro¬ 
tection and free trade. All the efforts of the Democracy to disguise 
this fact and sail under a false flag, as it has continually been endeav¬ 
oring to do for the last twenty-five years, will not avail it. The people 
are studying this subject as they once studied the character of slavery, 
and as upon that question so now upon this they will arrive at a correct 
conclusion. Ingenious phnises will not deceive them. They will not 
be misled by cunningly constructed platforms, which specifically state 
nothing, and may be construed to answer the demands of the different 
popular sentiments of different localities. 

The Democratic shibboleth is tariff reform, but every Democratic ora¬ 
tor who rises in his place in this House and takes “ tariff reform ” for 
his text makes a speech for free trade. Every proposition he lays down, 
every argument he makes, every conclusion he arrives at, is a proposi¬ 
tion upon which to rest the theory of free trade, an argument urging 
the virtues of free trade, a conclusion that free .trade should be practi¬ 
cally adopted by the nation. 

Tariff reform is used as every other expression of the Democracy 
upon that subject has hitherto been employed. It has been resorted 
to as a cloak to cover its ulterior purpose of free trade. The Demo¬ 
cratic party has never yet dared to phrase a distinct, unequivocal prop¬ 
osition upon the tariff question. It has acted toward the peojile like 
an intriguing diplomat who believes with Talleyrand that language 
was made to conceal rather than to express the real meaning and inten¬ 
tion of the speaker, and not like a brave party conscious of the honesty 
of its motives and confident of the soundness of its principles. 

With the approaching national election ever present in its mind, it 
continually endeavors to ambush its position. Hence “tariff reform,” 
“tariff for revenue only,” and “tariff for revenue” are the devices 
upon its banners to-day. But should such an improbable event occur 
as its success iu the approaching Presidential contest those misleading 
flags of a misleading party will be pulled down, the free-trade flags 
will be raised, and American producers of all kinds, farmers, manu¬ 
facturers, aud laborers, will be treated to their hearts’ content to British 
monopoly in this country and British paupers’ wages paid to American 
workmen. So much at least has been established by this debate. 

Not only have gentlemen preached free-trade sermons as often as they 
have taken tariff reform for their text, but we have been assured by the 
distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee that this 
bill is only a first step in cutting down protective duties. What the 
next step will be we are not informed, but that the final one is to be 
free trade in the eveut of Democratic success no intelligent man can 
doubt. The attempts of gentlemen to evade the issue will not serve 
them. They do it but haltingly. The ingenious rhetoric which they 
resort to neither changes it nor hides it away. Plainly protruding up 
through the sheep’s clothing the ears of the wolf are discernible. The 
recent remarkable speech of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hurd], as 
self-contradicting and absurd iu its propositions as it was elegant in its 
composition, was but a wild, incoherent cry for free trade under the 
caption of tariff reduction. He brands protection as robbery, but is 



willing to have it with 20 per cent, reduction to be made upon all duti¬ 
able articles without discrimination. 

If protection is robbery, then there should be none of it at all. A 
horizontal reduction of 20 per cent., as provided in the Morrison bill, is 
absurd; for it assumes that all products upon which there is now a 
duty can equally bear reduction. It is worse than Procrustes’s iron bed¬ 
stead, which was to make all people of equal height by cutting off those 
who were too long and stretching those who were too short. It cuts 
off 20 per cent, from all duties regardless of whether they be great or 
small. Such a reduction is senseless. If the tariff is to be revised at 
all it should be done j udiciously, carefully, and with proper discrimina¬ 
tion. He asserts that protection robs one class for the benefit of an¬ 
other, and then attempts to show that no class gets the benefit of the 
robbery. He says the farmers pay ip450,000,000 annually on account 
of protection, and then declares that neither the manufacturer nor 
laborer nor any one else gets it. What becomes of it the gentleman 
fails to tell us. He says that protection raises the price of manufact¬ 
ured articles, that the manufacturer pays no more for labor on account 
of it, and still is not benefited by it. He says a reduction of the tariff 
will raise the price of wool, and yet commends it to the woolen manu¬ 
facturer as the means of giving him cheaper raw material. He argues 
that free trade would increase our commerce by increasing our exports 
and imports, forgetting how greatly these have increased since the 
tariff laws of 1860 were enacted; neglecting to state that our commerce 
has not recovered from the crushing blow which it received from Demo¬ 
cratic cruisers during the war and inimical Democratic legislation 
since, and that the trouble is not that we have no exports to carry, but 
that we have no ships to carry them in. 

And while we are struggling for legislation to relieve American com¬ 
merce of the burdens which weight it down he and his friends defeat 
our bill introduced for that purpose by attaching to it an amendment 
which would ultimately destroy every American ship-yard now in ex¬ 
istence and prevent the creation of any more in the future. 

The fact is, that while our exports and imports have quite doubled 
since 1860, our foreign trade has diminished by one-half in the same 
period. 

If gentlemen will allow us to abolish the oppressive burdens upon 
American commerce and to encourage ship-building by Mdiolesome leg¬ 
islation, so that we may compete upon equal footing with foreign nations 
for the carrying trade of the world, then we may see our commerce re¬ 
stored to more than its former greatness and be gratified to be able to 
greet the American flag floating upon every sea and in every port on 
the globe. This we will do without resorting to the mischievous fal¬ 
lacy of free trade for which the gentleman in his speech upon tariff re¬ 
form so warmly and earnestly appeals. Indeed it is protection, such 
protection as we have extended to oiir coasting trade and inland in¬ 
dustries and by it built them up, that our foreign commerce needs; and 
it is no insignificant argument against free trade that this great unpro¬ 
tected American industry has been decaying for twenty years, and is 
to-day above all others depressed. 

The gentleman desires by free trade to open to our manufacturers the 
markets of the world, but fails to tell us how by the same act he would 
open to foreign competition our own markets, glut them with pauper- 
produced goods, drive our manufactures out of existence and our la¬ 
borers out of fairly paid employment into idleness and poverty. 


He talks earnestly of the distress of labor in America, but neglects 
to compare its condition with the abject misery and degradation of labor 
in free-trade England, or to inform us why it is that if labor is not 
better rewarded here than there hundreds of thousands of foreign la¬ 
borers leave their hovels and their broth in their native land and flock 
to our shores, where they earn comfortable homes and wholesome living. 

He tells us that the surplus products which we ship abroad control 
the home market. That surplus is less than 10 per cent, of our pro¬ 
duction. By as much as the home market is reduced the surplus prod¬ 
uct must be increased, unless our productions are curtailed. Through 
the open gates of free trade he would let in foreign products to take the 
place of our own in our markets. When by thus decreasing our home 
market he has increased our surplus from 10 to 30 or 40 per cent, of our 
production would not the necessity of placing so large a surplus upon 
the foreign market bear down the foreign price and, upon his theory, 
reduce the price at home ? 

But his'theory is incorrect. By stimulating an active and wholesome 
home market the surplus for the foreign market is decreased, and the 
price'there controlled, instead of controlling the price at home. 

Mr. Hewitt, who was chairman of the Democratic national commit¬ 
tee, struck the key-note to the tariff controversy when he wrote to Jay 
Gould in his letter of January 27, 1870, that “free trade will simply 
reduce the wages of labor to the foreign standard. ’ ’ 

The entire aim and effect of a protective tariff is to protect American 
labor, which is the foundation of American prosperity. We are here to 
legislate for America and not for Europe; but any legislation which 
shall open the gates to the products of pauper labor of the Old World 
and allow them to flow in upon us without restriction, destroy our in¬ 
dustries, and drive our workingmen out of employment or reduce their 
wages to keep our manufactories running is inimical to American pros¬ 
perity and that party which sustains it is an enemy to the American 
people. It has been called the British party, and justly so. It is en¬ 
deavoring to foster British interests as against American interests in 
this country, and British gold and British brains are backing it. 

Let us examine briefly the operation ofa protective tariff. You start an 
industry in Great Britain; I start one j ust like it in New York. To illus¬ 
trate, suppose it to be a woolen mill. Ninety per cent, of the cost of 
this mill will be for labor. You procure that for 60 cents per day. I 
pay $1 per day for labor to construct my mill in New York. If you 
have $60,000 invested I have $100,000, so that my interest account is 
one hundred while yours is only sixty. We hire employes in about the 
same ratio, vou paying 60 cents per day in Great Britain for the same 
class of labor that costs me $1 per day in America. The inevitable re¬ 
sult is that fis often as I produce a piece of my goods upon the market 
for $1 jmu produce a piece exactly like it for 60 cents. Of course you 
will drive me out of the market and cause me to shut up my mill and 
close my business unless something interferes to place us upon equal 
footing. This the protective tariff does. It says to you: “Mr. Eng¬ 
lishman, you may expose your goods for sale in our American market, 
but before you do so you must drop into the American Treasury, as a 
duty upon your importation, 40 cents, to be used to pay our Government 
expenses. This added to the 60 cents which your goods have already 
cost puts you on an equal footing with me and forces you to compete 
with me in our market upon equal terms.” 


7 


The only exceptions that occur to this result are where we are able 
to overcome this discrepancy in the price of labor by superior skill, 
greater ingenuity and enterprise, and advantage in our resources. Where 
these exceptions do not exist the American industry must be protected 
or be destroyed. But gentlemen of the Cobden Club and their Demo¬ 
cratic free-trade allies inform us that there is an easier way to equalize 
the cost of manufactures in the two countries than by resorting to the 
principle of protection, which is to reduce the price of American labor. 
This is their method. This will be the effect of free-trade if the people 
of this country shall be so unwise as to adopt it^ But what says the 
American laborer. He says, ‘ ‘ I cannot live on 60 cents per day; I cannot 
content myself with the miserable food, clothing, and shelter which the 
British laborer receives; his deplorable condition of existence I cannot 
put up with. ” If an adopted citizen, he has fled to this country to escape 
those terrible conditions and enjoy the better ones which this land of 
protection affords him. If a native American laborer, he will tell you 
that he must live in a house and not a hovel; that he must be decently 
clad and not covered with rags; that he must have meat and bread to 
eat and not subsist on broth, as so many British laborers do; that his 
children must be enabled to go to the school-house to be educated to 
meet the requirements of manhood, and not to the work-house or the 
factory or the brick-yard, while yet in their infancy, to toil with their 
hands and carry clay upon their heads to earn a few pennies each day 
for parents whose wages are not sufficient to support them, and grow 
up in ignorance, with a life before them of misery, degradation, and 
despair. 

And yet these are the conditions to which the American laborer, now 
so independent and prosperous, so superior in culture as well as in the 
comforts of life to the laborers of all other lands, must come if the work 
of his hands and his brains is not protected from competition in our 
home markets with the products of the poorly paid labor of Europe. 
They are the conditions to which the free-trader invites him—the free¬ 
trader, who would clothe the American workingman in the filthy rags 
and feed him upon the broth and refuse of the crushed and stunted and 
unhappy poor laborers of Great Britain. 

And who expects to be benefited by free trade; who is not to be in¬ 
jured by it? Not any producer in the land, whether in the field or 
the shop or the ship-yard or the mine. Only they -who have retired 
upon their accumulated capital and cutoff coupons from their bonds for a 
living, he who receives a stipulated salary from Government, and the 
idler who lives by his wits or importunity. The importer thinks he is 
to be benefited by free trade; he thinks that his importations will be 
greater when free trade has destroyed American production and we are 
obliged to make greater purchases abroad. But has it never occurred to 
him that American labor is the foundation of American wealth; that 
when by free trade he shall have crippled American industries and 
driven American laborers into idleness he will have taken away both 
their power and the power of their employ<3S to buy ; so that in destroy¬ 
ing American production he will have destroyed his own market, and 
in his overreaching avarice he will have killed the goose that lays for 
him the golden egg ? This would certainly be but a just retribution to 
him who would break down the industries of his country and degrade 
the labor of his countrymen to enhance his own gains. He does not 
deserve the favorable legislation of his Government. The capitalist 
does not need it. 


8 


Who is demanding a moditication of the tariff in the direction of freer 
trade? Is it the mechanic, the manufacturer, the miner, the farmer? 
No. Where are the petitions asking this legislation? Do they appear 
before this House from any great industry in this country ? No. Who is 
pushing this measure ? The Cobden Club, the theorists in our colleges, 
and those Democrats who inherit the doctrines which were announced 
in the days when slavery, which despised American labor and free Amer¬ 
ican workingmen, desired through “free trade” to obtain cheap food 
and clothing for the slaves. Does any one know of any workingman 
who belongs to the Cobden Club ? Does he know of any practical Amer¬ 
ican farmer or mechanic or manufacturer who has not a larger British 
than American interest that is a member of that club ? How does it 
happen that that British institution is taking so much interest in our 
affairs and is reaching its fingers over here so eagerly and industriously 
to manipulate our politics ? Why is it distributing its ‘ ‘ free-trade and 
tariff-reform” tracts all over this country? Why is every member of 
Congress deluged with them ? Is it a disinterested spirit of beneficence 
which causes it to take so great pains and provide the great amount of 
money which all this costs ? 

This club represents the manufiicturing interests of Great Britain. 
Are its members simple missionaries who disseminate their literature 
throughout this country for the single unselfish purpose of enlightening 
our people upon principles of political economy, or have they organized 
for the purpose of pushing British interests in this country ? That the 
latter is their object who is so foolish to doubt ? And if the protective 
tariff were uot a barrier to their operations, if it were not a.bulwark to 
American industries which these gentlemen find it necessary to batter 
down ere they can destroy them and build up British interests upon 
their ruin, who believes that they would so insidiously attack it? The 
fact that our great rivals make such Herculean efforts to secure the repeal 
of our tariff laws is conclusive proof that they regard them as our chief 
protection in controlling our own markets in the interest of our own pro¬ 
ducers. They seek to make a diversion in their favor by ingenious ap¬ 
peals to American farmers, but these appeals are as deceptive as they 
are adroit. More than any other one in this country is the American 
farmer interested in the protection of American industries, unless it be 
the American laborer. Of the truth of this proposition both facts and 
logic are conclusive. 

Two things the farmer desires as the conditions of his prosperity: a 
good sale for his products; a cheap market in which to purchase his sup¬ 
plies. These conditions protection has given him. It has created for 
him a home market by building up thrifty manufacturing villages all 
over the country and by employing in manufacturing pursuits those 
who would have been his competitors in the field. It has given to him 
cheaper goods by encouraging manufacturers in our own country, de.- 
stroying foreign monopoly, and inciting competition here, a competition 
which has resulted in cheapness of production. It has also stimulated 
the inventive genius of our people until by their improved machinery 
and better methods they are enabled to furnish the farmer with all that 
he buys at a large percentage less than the price at which he once pur¬ 
chased from abroad. Twenty years ago the farmer sold for 35 per cent, 
less and paid 25 per cent, more than he does to-day. 

Now, Avhat is the proposition of the “free-trader? ” It is to destroy 
American manufacturers by burying them under the products of for- 


eign cheap labor, giving again a monopoly to Great Britain, who, when 
she is once more firmly established upon the ruins of our industries, 
will send up her prices and make our farmers pay as they did in the 
palmy days of comparative free trade. When no alpaca goods were 
made in this country we imported them without duty at 22 cents per 
yard. A duty was placed upon them which encouraged Americans to 
commence their manufacture, and we now produce in our own country 
by our own labor for one-half the price which we paid to the foreign 
manufacturers a much better article than we imported. Prior to the 
enactment of the present tariff laws, one year ago, cash meres were made 
abroad and imported into this country without duty. The tariff act 
of ’83 placed a duty upon these goods. Encouraged by this protection, 
American mills commenced to make them, and to-day we have upon 
the market the American product, quite equal to the foreign and at a 
lower price. 

We are purchasing all except the finest grades of cotton goods cheaper 
at our own mills than they can be procured elsewhere. We do not 
manufacture fine lawns and cambrics because they contain little raw 
material, their principal cost being that of labor, and as labor is much 
cheaper in Europe than here we can not compete with foreign manu¬ 
facturers in the production of these goods. It is to cover this difference 
in the price of labor here and abroad that protectionists desire a duty 
upon articles which Americans produce. It may be asked why, if we 
can manufacture the coarser cotton goods more cheaply here than they 
can be produced abroad, we desire protection for them. It is for the 
following reason: When foreign manufacturers have a large surplus 
on hand they can afford to transport it to this country, dump it down 
upon us for less than cost, and greatly embarrass our manufiicturers. 
From this the latter desire to be protected, and should be; for such 
periodical disturbances of our home market would work more detri¬ 
ment to the consumer than he could possibly gain by the temporarily 
low prices which they would afford him, and from which there could 
not fail to be a corresponding reaction. 

The gentleman from Texas argued better than he knew and to a dif¬ 
ferent and wiser conclusion when he said that nine manufacturing States 
in this country had increased their wealth under the policy of protec¬ 
tion vastly more than the agricultural States had done. His statement 
is correct, and it is a conclusive argument for protection; for this great 
increase of wealth in the States referred to has not been confined to their 
manufactories, but has extended to every branch of their industries. If 
the gentleman will examine the statistics he will find this statement to 
be strictly correct. The manufactures which have been built up under 
the encouragement of protection in these States have brought wealth 
not only to their own pockets, but to the fiirmers, the merchants, and 
the workingmen as well. Here is where the gentleman will find that 
farming lands are of the greatest value per acre, though they be not of 
the best quality; here farm laborers receive the largest wages; here farm 
products command the highest prices; here farm buildings are the best 
and most costly; here commerce and trade are the most thrifty; and here 
the saving-banks, where are deposited the surplus earnings of working 
people, have the largest accounts. The gentleman, in the true spirit 
of free trade, would transport this prosperity across the ocean to Great 
Britain by destroying the source from which it has sprung, and would 
reduce these nine States to the condition of the others which he says 
are comparatively so unthrifty. 


10 




I would, on the contrary, continue the protective policy that these 
other States may avail themselves of its benefits, erect the factory and 
foundery beside the farm and build up industries as prosperous as those 
of the nine States whose thrift the gentleman seems so much to envy. 
It is the home markets which manufactories create near by the farmer’s 
door which give him the best returns for his products. They are better 
than foreign markets for various reasons. They are more reliable, be¬ 
cause they do not depend upon foreign wars or floods or pestilence or 
famine or other causes remote from our control. They are the best 
paying markets, because to those who sell in them the cost of transpor¬ 
tation across the ocean is saved. They are the broader markets, because 
they absorb many products of the farmer which could not be shipped 
abroad and upon which he makes his largest profits. 

Gentlemen talk of opening a larger foreign market by free trade. 
How is this to be done ? Foreign nations now purchase all they want 
of our products. Will free trade induce them to buy more ? Gentle¬ 
men have assumed that it will do so, but I have not yet heard any 
reason for the assumption. The question is, shall we allow the foreign 
producer to come in and capture our market with his pauper produced 
goods, or shall we so levy the re venues, for the support of the Govern¬ 
ment as to give to the manufacturer, the farmer, and the miner the 
benefit of supplying our own consumers and give also to our laborers 
reasonable wages for their toil ? 

Our free-trade friends talk of low prices as if they alone were to be 
considered in the economy of our Government. They ignore the fact 
that the great mass of our people are not rich; that they have no estab¬ 
lished incomes but are dependent upon their earnings to give them sub¬ 
sistence and the comforts of life, and that the question of fair wages for 
their labor is one in which they are most deeply concerned, and what¬ 
ever legislation protects the country’s industries in giving them a lib¬ 
eral remuneration for their toil is legislation for their highest benefit. 
It is notorious that England built up her great manufacturing and agri¬ 
cultural interests by the most heroic methods of protection, protection 
not only against foreign competition, but even against that of her own 
colonies. She continued this policy until she had made her great in¬ 
dustries so strong that she felt that she commanded the situation, and 
with free trade could go into other countries with the products of her 
skill, her machinery, her cheap labor, and the strength of her immense 
capital, break up their infant industries, and control their markets. 

That is her purpose to-day, and it is with such a purpose that acting 
through the Cobden Club and its Democratic allies she is endeavoring 
to disseminate her free-trade sophistries into every corner of our land, 
and it may not be out of place for me to say here that it is significant 
of the effect of protection upon the farmer that the manufactures 
which grew up under that policy in England made his home market 
so large in comparison with the number it left to cultivate the fields 
and so raised the price of his products that’ the first effort toward free 
trade was not on the part of the farmers to obtain cheaper manufact¬ 
ures, but it was a movement of the people to procure by the passage 
of the corn laws act cheaper food. 

In this country, however, with our immense area of rich and produc¬ 
tive lands food can never be unreasonably high; and it is a fact that 
while protection gives to the American workingman a better reward 
for his labor than is paid in any other country, he buys almost every arti- 


11 


cle of food which he consumes, except sugar and rice, more cheaply 
here than it can elsewhere be purchased. Hence he has more com¬ 
forts, is better educated, is more independent, and provides better for 
his family than does his fellow-laborer in any other land. And it is 
this condition of things which we desire to continue. Neither to de¬ 
crease the expenses of the retired capitalist, the salaried official, the 
unproductive idler, nor to fill the coffers of British manufacturers. Will 
we consent so long as we can prevent it to clothe in the tattered rags of 
foreign pauper lab^orer the workingmen of America ? 

I stated in the early part of my remarks that the issue was between 
protection and free trade. There is no intermediate ground where a 
tenable position can be taken. A tariff for revenue only, with inci¬ 
dental protection, which is one of the many propositions of the Democ¬ 
racy on this subject, is a simple impossibility. It is a contradiction of 
terms, for a tariff for revenue only must be levied of course upon those 
articles alone which would produce the largest amount of revenue upon 
the percentage of taxation, whatever it might be. Those are articles ex¬ 
clusively of foreign production, the duties upon all of which are col¬ 
lected and paid into the Treasury of the Government. Such a tariff 
would protect no American industries, because the duties would be laid 
upon no goods of the kinds produced in this country. 

A tariff exclusively for revenue is an injustice to all the poor people in 
the land. What reason can you give to the man who has a dozen child ren 
and is poor why you should tax the mouths and backs of his family 
and himself to raise revenue for the support of the Government rather 
than raise it upon property, as the States and municipalities do, unless 
you can show to him that these duties are either levied upon luxuries 
which he does not use, or are so levied as to protect the industries by 
which he lives ? Why should the Government raise its revenues upon 
his necessities and the needs of his family rather than upon the prop¬ 
erty of the childless man of wealth—the Government which alone stands 
between the rich man’s possessions and the strong who would wrest 
them from him? No good reason can be given, unless you enhance his 
wages by as much as you take from him through this method of taxa¬ 
tion. Protection does this and more. 

Let us, moreover, consider the fact that if gentlemen shall succeed in 
bringing this Government to the practice of the principles of ‘ ‘ free 
trade, ’ ’ which they all so earnestly advocate, there will be nothing left 
but direct taxation to furnish the necessary revenues of the Govern¬ 
ment beyond the amount raised by the internal-revenue tax. Are the 
people ready for such direct taxation ? Has any one cast up the sum to 
see what it will amount to for each State, county, and municipality ? 
The current expenses of the Government can not be less than $300,000,- 
000 per year. The internal-revenue tax, if it shall not be repealed, will 
give us about $100,000,000. The amount left to be raised by direct 
taxation would be $200,000,000, or $4 for each person in the country. 
This would add annually to the taxes of the State of New York $20,- 
000,000. To the State of Maine it would add $2,600,000, and gentle¬ 
men can readily calculate the large sums which would be added to the 
taxes of their own States, cities, and towns. 

Do these figures hold out a gratifying prospect to tax-payers? Will 
they prefer this method of raising the public revenue to that of taxing 
the'foreign manufacturer, who imports his goods into our country for 
a market ? I feel assured that they will not; yet this is the feast to 


12 


which the free-trade Democracy invites them, to which they must in¬ 
evitably come, and of which they must partake, if that party shall be 
placed in power where it can make its fallacious and ruinous policy the 
policy of the Government. 

Gentlemen say that protection benefits the manufacturer but not the 
laborer. To refute this assumption it is necessary only to cite the fact 
that while thousands of laborers fiock to our shores every year from 
Great Britain to secure the higher wages which protection gives them 
here, British capital does not come here to invest in manufactures. 
AVere the manufacturer and not the laborer benefited by protection, 
then the former would send his capital here to invest and the latter 
would stay at home, for capital will flow where it can be best invested 
as surely as water runs down hill. 

The foreign manufacturer makes his profits from cheap labor as our 
own manufacturers are enabled to compete with him and give fair 
emoluments to labor by protection. If any further proofs are needed 
as to who reap the benefits of our protective policy they may be found 
by comparing the comforts by which the great majority of American 
workingmen surround themselves with the poverty and misery so com¬ 
mon among the laboring classes of “free-trade” Great Britain. The 
history of protection is its best advocate. As it built up and solidly 
established the manufactures of England, giving incidental prosperity 
to her other industries, so it is now doing for us. It has diversified 
the employment of our people, made us in large measure to be the pro¬ 
ducers of what we consume, created a healthy competition that has 
reduced the cost of what we wear and use, stimulated the inventive 
geni us of our people to create new machinery and discover better, cheaper, 
and easier methods of production, is filling the land with thriving com¬ 
munities, and is making us an independent as well as a prosperous peo- 
pl e. Let us not abandon it to grati fy the greed of our transatlantic rivals, 
nor to adopt the plausible but delusive theories of impractical doctri¬ 
naires. 


O 



t 




» 


« 


4 







t . • 

• I ...» 





« 



I 

f 







•'.’,/y.r >; .--vW . . ■■ ,•_,. 


V' 






^ i *.', ■ 





/ 



\ 


> < 
.'t- 


» 


V t 


• . i 



/ 


( 



» 

' I 








V 


I 





\ 


, » 


t 



Tlie Tariff vs. The Farmer. 


Industry is like the hardy Alpine plant. Self-sown on the mountain-side, ex¬ 
posed to the inclemency of the season, it gathers strength in its struggle for ex¬ 
istence; it shoots forth in vigor and beauty. Transplant it to the rich soil of 
the parterre, tended by the fostering hand of the gardner, nursed in the artifi¬ 
cial atmosphere of the forcing-glass, it grows sickly an.l inervated. Its shoots 
are vigorless; its flowers inodorous. In one single word lies the soul of indus¬ 
try, coHPKTiTiox. —Leone Levi. 


SPEECH 


OP 


HON. ROGER 



OF TEXAS, . ' 

In the House of Eepresentatives, 

Tuesday, April 15, 1884. 

The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5893) to reduce import duties and 
war-tariflf taxes— 

Mr. MILLS said: 

Mr. Chairman : It is a fact admitted by all that the present rate of 
taxation is too great. It is a fact admitted by all that there is a de¬ 
mand in all jxvrts of the country for a reduction of its burtlens. If we 
intend in good faith to respond to that demand it is important for us to 
cons-ider where we will begin the work. Shall we repeal the internal- 
revenue taxes, as demanded by some, or shall we reduce the tariff, as de¬ 
manded by others? It can not be denied that increased consumption 
will follow the reduction of price of any tax-bearing article. The 
whole list is before us. What articles on these lists commend themselves 
most strongly to our consideration to be cheapened in order that their 
consumption may be increiised among the people ? Is it whisky or food ? 
Is it whisky or clothing? Is it whisky or the implements of labor? 
Reduction must take place on some of these articles and we must now 
determine what we will reduce. The people demand a reduction of 
taxation, but I do not understond that they are clamoring for cheaper 
or more abundant whisky, but that the necessaries of life may be placed 
within eiisier reach of those who labor for their daily subsistence. 

But there are some here and elsewhere who denounce the whisky-tax 
as an “infernal tax” and demand its repeal. Whence comes this de¬ 
mand ? Who are these zealous reformers that are compassing sea and 
land and preaching a crusade for the emancipation of whisky from the 
clutches of the tax-gatherer ? Who is it that is so eager, so zealous, so 
importunate for cheaper and more abundant whisky ? It does not come 
from those who make it, who pay taxes on it, who sell it, or who drink 
it. These are strange facts. But there is a constant pressure for the 
repeal of the internal-revenue tax and that tax only. It comes from 
those who quatf the sparkling juice of the grape, which is taxed more 




o 


lightly than whisky. It comes from a combination of manufacturers, 
national bankers, and bondholders. Why are they so anxious for its j 
repeal ? Because all three of them are interested in the perpetuation / 
of the public debt, and the annual revenues of the Government are pay-’ 
ing otf that debt at the rate of a hundred million every year. 

The bondholder has his fortune invested in that debt. It is a sure 
and safe investment on which he pays no taxes, either national. State, 
or municipal. If his bonds are paid he must invest his capital where 
he will not feel so secure and where he will have to join other people 
in helping to support his State and local government. But the internal 
revenue is paying this debt, and therefore to him it is an “ infernal tax. ’ ’ 
The national bankers own $350,000,000 of these bonds. The Govern¬ 
ment has paid them 90 per cent, of these bonds in dollars as good as 
gold, and a bill is on the Speaker’s table which has passed the Senate 
to pay them a hundred cents on the dollar and yet continue to pay them 
interest on the whole sum nominated in the bonds. They have a mort¬ 
gage written upon the muscles of the laboring people of the whole coun¬ 
try to secure the nayment of principal and interest. They do not want 
the debt paid. When it is paid they will draw no more interest from 
the people on their investment. But the internal revenue is paying 
the debt, and to them it is an “infernal tax. ” 

The manufacturer has been rolling the public debt as a sweet morsel 
under his tongue. Whenever the people, prostrated by exorbitant tax¬ 
ation, complain of the burden he is always ready with an answer to the 
complaint by pleading the necessities of high tariffs to meet the annmil 
interest of the debt. If the debt is paid his plea will be gone and high 
tariffs will go with it. Therefore the internal-revenue tax to him is an 
“infernal tax,” These three powerful classes are deeply interested in 
the retention of the public debt as long as possible, and if possible for¬ 
ever. They are constantly piling argument on top of argument and 
entreaty on top of entreaty to have this “infernal tax” repealed. 

Since the war we have repealed more than three hundred millions of 
internal- revenue taxes. We have repealed all the taxes on incomes, all 
the taxes from ‘railroad and telegraph companies. We have repealed 
heavy taxes imposed on domestic manufactures. We have repealed 
taxes on bankers, on liquor dealers, and on the manufacture of playing- 
cards, And now, when the consumer of clothing and food and the im¬ 
plements of labor ask you to cheapen the necessaries of life to him only 
20 per cent., you offer him free whisky or nothing. You gave away to 
bankers and whisky dealers and the manufacturers of patent medicines 
about $40,000,000 last year, and you thought that would stop paying 
the public debt. But it did not, and now you want to give up the tax 
on whisky. Now, what shall we reduce ? The question is pressing upon 
us for settlement. It will not down. It can not be evaded. Shall we 
repeal the whisky tax and perpetuate the debt, or shall we retain the 
whisky tax, continue the payment of the debt, and relieve the people 
by reducing taxation on the necessaries of life? 

The bill which we present you joins issue sharp and decisive with 
those who urge the repeal of the internal-revenue tax. It demands re¬ 
duction of taxation on the nece,ssaries of life—on the food which the 
people eat, the clothes they wear, the implements with which they 
work. The proposition which we ask you to support is a very moder¬ 
ate and conservative one. It is extreme in nothing. It was drawn 
with a view to harmonize all elements of opposition to high taxes. It 
does not meet my views. It does not reflect my opinions. But at a 


3 


time when all admit that taxation is too high, it ought to be agreed 
that a very moderate reduction of 20 per cent, ought to be made on the 
necessaries of life. 

But it is argued that this bill provides for a horizontal reduction, 
and that horizontal reduction is unequal, unjust, unwise, and impoli¬ 
tic. It would seem from what we hear that the committee had gotten 
up some novelty and brought to the House. Why, sir, we have had 
horizontal taxes on our statute-books from the very dawn of the Gov¬ 
ernment. Look back through the history of our taxation and you will 
see an old law that imposes a horizontal tax of 10 per cent, on all goods 
imported into this country in foreign ships. You will see another old 
law which imposes a horizontal tax of 10 per cent, on all goods pro¬ 
duced in countries east of the Cape of Good Hope and imported from 
points west of that cape. 

In 1833 the great compromise tariff introduced by Mr. Clay, the 
father of protection in this country, was passed by Congress. Under 
that law there was a horizontal reduction of the tariff of 10 per cent, 
in 1833, a horizontal reduction ot 10 per cent, in 1835, a horizontal re¬ 
duction of 10 per cent in 1837, a horizontal reduction of 10 per cent, 
in 1839, and in 1842 a horizontal tariff of 20 per cent. Wiis reached by 
the sliding scale, and it was agreed that that should remain the law of 
the future, and that the bill should be regarded as a settlement of a 
long-vexed que.stion—“ a treaty of amity and peace,” as it was charac¬ 
terized by its distinguished author. These are not all of the horizontal 
taxes we have had during our history. In 1865 there was a horizontal 
increase of 20 per cent, on the taxes levied on the schedules of domestic 
manufacture; and in 1866 there w;xs a horizontal reduction of 20 per 
cent, on domestic manufactures. In 1872 there was a horizontal re¬ 
duction of 10 per cent, on the schedule of imported goods, and in 1875 
there was a horizontal increase of 10 per cent, on imported goods. 

So that horizontal taxes, though not the wisest and best for some rea¬ 
sons, are not entirely unknown to our laws. 

Mr. Chairman, the passage of this bill, while it reduces the present 
high rate of taxation only 20 per cent., will be a very substantial relief 
to the people. But great as are all the benelits that will flow from a 
reduction so moderate on articles entering into every-day consumption 
by the people, that is but half of its benelits. It will remove many 
obstructions that impede and cripple our foreign trade. It will in¬ 
crease the importation of foreign articles. It will increase the expor¬ 
tation of domestic articles. It will cheapen the products of manufacture., 
It will increase the value of the products of agriculture. 

A mere glance at the manifest of our foreign trade exhibits the fact 
that it is composed chiefly of agricultural products on one side ex¬ 
changed for manufacturing products and articlesentering into manufact¬ 
ure on the other. Four-fifths of our exports of domestic merchandise are 
the products of the farm and field, and they must remain so for many 
years to come, because we live in a new country where the soil is rich 
and cheap and the climate mild and genial. With comparatively small 
expenditure of capital and lalior it produces large crops. It is the mar¬ 
ket that supplies the food to the thickly populated and older countries 
of the world where the land is too poor to produce and too costly to till. 
To labor in shops and factories>is the law of necessity to the crowded 
populations of Europe. To labor in the field and farm is equally the 
law of necessity to the sparse populations who live on the cheap and 
fertile lands of the United States. 





4 


By the inexorable law of necessity the European manufacturer and 
the American farmer are customers of each other, and our agriculture 
is seriously involved in all legislation that restricts the importation of 
foreign goods. If we keep out foreign manufactures we keep in our 
r'a^icultural products and force them to sacrifice upon a market largely 
oversupplied and where'^there is little demand. After supplying all 
our home wants we have a large and constantly growing surplus that 
can only find markets in foreign countries. What is to become of this 
surplus? Year by year it grows greater. More than ^lalf of our people 
live by the labor of the field, and the prosperity of all depends upon 
its success. All who live by labor in manpfactories, mines, and trans¬ 
portation, all the professions and all the occupations, depend upon the 
success of the farm for employment and subsistence. Whatever we 
do the interest of all demands that agriculture shall not be inj ured. - 

But if we refuse the products of the foreigner he is compelled to refu^ 
ours, for he has nothing to give in exchange. Trade is the mutual ex- \ 
change of equivalents. We send to Europe the surplus products of oux-^ 
farms because we can produce them cheaper here than they can be pro¬ 
duced there. They send us in return the products of their manufacto¬ 
ries because they can be produced there cheaper than here. Each prod¬ 
uct goes from the lower to the higher market to obtain the increiised 
value. Each sends to the foreign market to sell because it is the high¬ 
est market for the export. Each sends to the foreign market to buy 
because it is the lowest market for the import, and in both cases both 
parties are actuated by the motive of gain, which is the sole motive that 
actuates all trade, foreign and domestic. 

Our foreign trade, therefore, being an exchange carried on mainly be¬ 
tween our farmers and foreign manufacturers, every hinderance thrown 
in the way of that trade is a serious injury to our agriculture, and 
through it to the whole country. Our crops are now far beyond the re¬ 
quirements of our home consumption, and for the want of sufficient 
markets they are decreasing in value as they increase in quantity. 
What are we to do? If the foreign market is closed against us our agri¬ 
culture is prostrated at a blow. This is a matter of the deepest concern 
to the West and South. The North and East do not produce such large 
crops because their soil and climate do not permit it. The large body 
of their farming products is marketed at home, but in the West and 
South that grow the wheat and corn and cotton and raise the provisions 
that constitute the greater part of our exports it is almost a question 
of existence. The people in the New England States and New York, 
Pennsylvania, and New Jersey have markets at home for nearly all of 
their farm products. The country there is not exclusively adapted to 
either agriculture or manufactures. Each branch of industry finds a 
market with the other. It is not so with us in the West and South. 
We must either have the foreign market or none. 

The chief of the Bureau of Statistics, in a report recently laid on our 
tables in reference to the German tariff on our pork, says that 93 ];>er 
cent, of the total exports of hog products from the United States during 
recent years have consisted of the surplus products of the States of Ohio, 
Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, TennesseCj Missouri, Kansas, 
Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. These are the people you 
are striking when you prohibit the importation of foreign manufact¬ 
ures, for every dollar of importation you prohibit you likewise pro¬ 
hibit the exportation of a dollar’s worth of the products of agriculture. 

But you say you do not prohibit us from exporting; you want us to 




5 


export all we can and sell for gold and bring it home and buy domestic 
goods. How would you do in trading with Italy, that hiis no gold, but 
only a paper money, and Austria and the Argentine Confederation ? 
Sojne countries carry on their exchanges in depreciated paper, worth 
little at home and nothing abroad. There your trade would step. But 
suppose every people had a gold and silver circulation, you could not 
trade on such terms. The coin of a country is its home circulation. It 
can not be sent off except in small amounts to settle balances, and then 
it in due course of trade returns again. ' ^ 

But suppose we demand of Great Britain the gold for the four hundred 
millions of farm products we send her, it would take all her gold to pay , 
for one crop. As our j^wlicy is to sell, not to buy, we will not send that { 
gold back again. Next year we will have another crop to sell. How 
can she buy ? Her gold is all gome; she can not get it back. Why, sir, ' 
it Ls absurd to talk about international trade carried on by selling for 
gold and buying nothing. International trade is an exchange of one 1 
commodity lor another. The question returns upon us, what will we : 
do with our surplus agricultural products? You meet us again with" 
another theory. We must encourage the growth of home manufactures; 
we must put the consumer and producer side by side, and make a home 
market for our agricultural surplus. Now, it is a sufficient answer to^ ^ 
this to say that lor twenty years we have had this system in all its vigor, 
and yet we have not had the consumer of our agricultural products side . 
by side with our farmers in the South and West. • ^ 

After twenty years of high protective tariffs the farmers of Iowa and 
Kansas and Nebraska and the rest had to go to Europe to find con¬ 
sumers. But suppose all the manufacturing establishments in the East 
were taken up and carried West, with all their laborers, would they 
consume any more in the West than in the East ? The consumption 
would be the same. In order to make a home market for our surplus 
agricultural products there must be an increase of manufacturing labor¬ 
ers twice or three times as great as the present number; but that can 
not be, because the present amount of manufacturing labor is suffi¬ 
cient to make all the products our people can consume, and then they 
can not get work full time. So their number can not be increased, but 
the agricultural laborers are increasing all the time, and the question 
still remains unanswered. What is to become of our surplus agricult¬ 
ural products? 

My vendable friend on the other side [Mr. Kelley] gives us still 
another theory. He says we must diversify our industries. The farmer 
is to be consoled by the advice to stop farming to such excess and go 
into manufactures and reduce the product of the farm and increase the 
product of the factory. This carries him still deeper into the Serbo- 
nian bog. How can any considerable number of farmers change their 
occupation? It takes large capital, skill, and training to carry on 
manufactures successfully. Gur farmers are men in but moderate cir¬ 
cumstances. They have their little fiirms and the stock and farming 
implements necessary to till them. They have no capital to go into 
manufactures, and besides there are more products now being manu¬ 
factured than can be consumed. 

All these theories are fallacious and deceitful. The farmer is shut 
up to his occupation. There is no escape from it. He can no more aban¬ 
don it than the pilot can abandon his ship when the storm is driving 
it on the reefs and rocks. ' It is the merest trifling to tell him to quit 
the plow and go to the forge or the loom. You tiintalize him when you 


advise him to abandon the only occupation by which he can live and go to 
manulacturing. When he asks you to take the hand of the Govern¬ 
ment out of his pocket you tell him to stop farming and go to the end 
of the rainbow and gather gold ! The question what is to become of 
our surplus agricultural products that are increasing in quantity and 
decreasing in value for want of markets, remains unanswered. Now, 
let me show you'what high tariffs have done for our farmers since we 
have had them. In 1850 the value of all firm products was $1,299,- 
197,682. In 1860 the value of all farm products are not given, but the 
quantities are. These largely increased, and so did the value of all farm 
products. Mr. Grosvenor, in his work, ‘ ‘ Does protection protect ? ’ ’ says 
of that crop: 

By far the greater part of our production of wealth is by means of agricult¬ 
ure. The annual product of that branch of industry according to the census 
of 1860 was about $2,598,393,364. 

Hon. Robert J. Walker, ex-Secretary of the Treasury, in a letter ad¬ 
dressed to the people of the United States, November 30,1867, says: 

From 1850to 1860 our agricultural products increased 95 per cent, and our man- 
ufiiotures 87 per cent, being in both cases nearly double any preceding ratio of 
increase. 

These two gentlemen are both accurate statisticians. I take Secretary 
Walker’s statement of the value of the crop of 1860, not because I think 
it more accurate than Mr. Grosvenor’s, but because it is a little less. 

Ninety-five per cent, increase on the crop of 1850 would make the 
value of the crop of 1860 $2,533,435,659. 

The value of all farm products in 1870 as given by the census was 
$2,447,538,630. The value of all farm products as given by the census 
^f 1S80 was $2,213,402,564. 

From these figures it will be seen that the-crop of 1880 was not as 
great in value as that of 1860 by $300,000,000. Had that ever occurred 
to you? Notwithstanding there were 4,000,000 more men laboring in 
the fields to make that crop; notwithstanding there were 120,000,000 
more acres in cultivation; notwithstanding there were three thousand 
millions more money invested in farms and farming implements than 
in the year 1860—yet the entire value of all farm products was largely 
under that of 1860, twenty years before that. How did this occur? 
How could it be so? Was there a blight on the fields? No. Was the 
crop destroyed by mildew or the army worm ? No. On the contrary, 
the crop of 1880 was twice as large as that of 1860. Everything of 
farm production increased in quantity. Then how could the value 
of the farm products in 1880 be under that of 1860? It was the result 
in the fall of the price of farm products. And that was caused by the 
high-tariff obstructions that were thrown in the channels of commerce 
in 1861, and which obstructions still remain. Now, let us see what 
farmers have made by high tariffs. 

- If we take the whole agricultural products of 1860 and divide that 
by the number of those whose labor produced that value, we find that 
the farmers realized, in 1860, $778 each, in 1870, $413 each, and in 1880, 
$289 each. So it seems that high tariffs that keep him out of the 
foreign markets with his products are not very beneficial to him. The 
manufacturer did not fare so badly. While he did not prosper as he 
did under the low tariff of1860, hedidbetter than the farmer. He had a 
million more men employed in 1880 than he had in 1860, and a thou¬ 
sand mill ions more money invested; but he made a profit of 36 per cent, 
overcost of wages and material, while he made 47 in 1860; but the fanner 


7 


made little or nothing above subsistence. While the price of agricult¬ 
ural products has fallen so since 1860, have manufactured products 
fallen at the same rate? No; if you will look at the reports of the Iron 
and Steel Association you will see that pig-iron was higher in 1880than 
in 1860, and so was bar-iron, and so was railway bars. If you will look 
at a schedule of the prices of protected articles you will not see the 
same decline; you will see window-glass and many other things higher 
instead of lower. And for the best of reasons: the high tariifs compel 
the tarmer to sell in the markets where the supply is already greater 
than the demand, audit compels him to buy in the market the products 
of manufacture where demand is greater than the supply, and he loses 
both ways. 

These are startling figures, and the unhappy condition of our farmei*^ 
is the logical result of the destruction of their markets. His products 
had to be forced to sale in markets oversupplied when there was little 
or no demand, and of course at ruinously' low prices. 

The uniform result of high tariffs has been to increase the price of 
the protected articles and decrease the price of farming products. We 
began the policy of.protection in 1816 as a temporary policy. The 
doctrine was advocated before that, but all the tariffs prior to 1816 
were revenue tariffs. In 1816, having just passed through a trying 
war with Great Britain, our statesmen favored a temporary protection 
to infant manufactures till they could stand alone, in order that the 
Government might be independent and self-supporting in time of war. 
This was the ground on which Mr. Dallas placed his support of the 
Walker tariff of 1846. In giving the casting vote that passed the bill 
through the Senate he said: 

The struggle to exert without abatement the constitutional power of taxation 
in such a manner as to protect by high duties on impoi'ts many of the produc¬ 
tions of our own soil and labor from the competition of other countries has en¬ 
dured for more than thirty years. During that period a system of high taxation 
has prevailed, with fluctuations of success and failure. It ought to be remem¬ 
bered that this exercise of the taxing power was originally intended to be tem- 
porar;^. The design was to foster feeble “ infant" manufactures, especially sucff 
as were essential to the defense of the country in time of war. In this design the 
people have persevered until these saplings have taken root, have become vig¬ 
orous, expanded, and powerful, and are prepared to enter with confidence the 
' field of fair, free, and universal competition. 

In 1816 when we began to protect infant manufactures, especially cot¬ 
tons and woolens, it was stated by Mr. Clay that protection was only 
wanted for three years. And tyhen the act was passed a protective duty 
of 25 per cent, was put on cottons and woolens till 1819. After that they 
were to return to the revenue standard of 20 per cent. In 1818, a year 
before the temporary policy was to expire. Congress again extended the 
protective duty to 1826. What was the effect of this x>olicy at its first 
inauguration? The first thing that attracts our attention is the falling 
off of our foreign trade. Our imports that year were one hundred and 
forty-seven millions; they declined for years throughout the whole pro;^ 
tective period, and did not reach that amount again till 1835. From^ 
1800 to 1816 our foreign trade increased 42 per cent., and from 1816 to 
1832 it decrease{l 20 per cent. From 1820 to 1830 our foreign trade was 
not as great as from 1800 to 1810, notwithstanding the war between the 
British orders in council and the Berlin and Milan decrees that made 
the high seas a field for the plunder of neutral goods as well as the con¬ 
tinent under the command of the armies of France and England. Dur¬ 
ing that period every spot on the ocean was a scene of conflict, and 
“the highway of nations was almost without a flag floating on its 



I 


/ 

/ 



8 --- 

surface except the flag of commercial marauders.” Yet this dreadful 
conflict between these exasperated belligerents was not so destructive 
to our commerce as the high tariffs from 1820 to 1830. • Cotton and 
breadstuifs fell 50 per cent, after the tariff of 1816. In 1824, when the ■ 
tariff was again increased, our foreign trade again fell off. In 1828 the ‘ 
tariff was again increased until it became so odious that it was charac¬ 
terized as the tariff of abominations. Our foreign trade again fell. Our j 
imports in 1830 had fallen from one hundred and forty-seven millions ^ 
in 1816 to seventy millions. And that period from 1820 to 1830 is ad- i 
raitted to be the darkest period in our history. In 1833 the compromise J 
tariff was enacted that put the country on a sliding scale from protectic^/ 
to revenue. 

' Now we have seen our foreign trade falling off every time the tariff 
was increased. Do we see the same thing when it is reduced ? On the 
contrary, our imports rose from one hundred and eight millions in 1833 
to one hundred and eighty-nine millions in 1836. Our foreign trade 
increased 40 per cent, by 1841. How did it affect agricultural prod¬ 
ucts? Just as it does always when markets are opened for their sale. 
Agricultural products rose, and manufacturing products fell. From 
1835 to 1842 raw cotton rose 60 per cent, and cotton goods fell 40 per 
cent; In 1839 raw cotton was worth 15 cents per pound. Between 
1833 and 1842 woolen manufactures increased 60 per cent, while flan¬ 
nels, blankets, and other woolen goods were constantly falling in price. 
Why, the exports of the manufactures of iron increased during the ex¬ 
istence of the gradually flilling duties till 1842, when they showed an 
increase of 300 per cent, for the whole period. 

In 1842 the revenue tariff was repealed, and a high protective tariff 
was again adopted. The same result follows this that followed the tariffs 
of 1816, 1824, and 1828. Foreign trade falls off, and as a consequence 
agricultural products fall in price. Cotton, which was 15 cents a pound 
in 1839, is 6 cents in 1843; other farm products shared the same fate 
with cotton. Protected articles, such as cotton goods, woolens, iron, and 
sugar, rose from 20 to 100per cent. So depressed were all farm products 
that the year 1843, succeeding the year of the high tariff, has been char¬ 
acterized as the low-water mark of the century. The exports of iron, 
which increased 300 per cent, under the revenue tariff of 1833, de¬ 
creased 50 per cent, under the protective tariff of 1842. 

On the 30 th day of J uly the Witiker tariff was enacted, to go into effect 
the 1st day of December, 1846. How was our foreign trade, affected by 
this low revenue tariff? It increased so much that from the 1st of De¬ 
cember, 1846, to 1st of December, 1847, the revenue had increased eight 
and one-half millions notwithstanding the very great reduction of duties. 
How did this affect agricultural products? Just as a revenue tariff 
al ways does when it opens a way for them to market. Agricultural prod¬ 
ucts rose from July 30, 1846, to December 1, 1846, 23^ per cent, on an 
average; cotton rose 18.3 per cent; wheat, 17.3; rye, 18; corn, 24.5; 
oats, 40.9; barley, 24.7. Seven of the principal crops as shown by the 
Secretary of the Treasury in his report of that year had increased in 
value during the six months succeeding the passage of that bill more 
than $115,000,000, and it was estimated that the increased A'alue of the 
whole crop for the same period was three hundred and fifty millions 
This additional value was given to the agricultural products of the 
country because the tariff of 1846 opened a way for them to market. 

But that is not all of its benefits to the farmery- It decreased the prices 
of manufactured products correspondingly. \ It added three hundred 


9 


millions to liis crops, but it added three hundred and fifty 
millious to the purchasing power of his moneyT^ 

High tarifis hurtiis all when we buy, but they iiurt the farmer twice. 
They hurt him when he sells and hurthim when he buys. But did not 
the low tariff of 1816 ruin the manufacturers ? I have heard all sorts 
of statements made about the pernicious efiects of that tariff on oujl-j 
manufacturers. The official records show that our manufacturer pros¬ 
pered under the low tariffs from 1846 to 1860 as they never did fiefore, 
and as I am sure they never will again until the way is again opened > 
Jfqrjiur agricultural i)r()ducts to foreign markets. 

I have here a statement showing the average annual increase of the 
values Of the products of domestic manufactures. One period is from 
1850 to 1860 under low tariffs, the other from 1860 to 1880 under 
high tariffs. Manufactures increased at 8 per cent, per annum in the 
first period and 6 in the second; cajjital invested in manufactures in¬ 
creased 8 per cent, for the first and 6 for the second; cotton goods in¬ 
creased 7 per cent, in the first and 3 per cent, in the second; woolen 
goods, 4 per cent, in the first and 11 per cent, in the second; iron, 8per 
cent, in the first and 7per cent, in the second; steel, 90 per cent, in the 
first and 14 per cent, in the second; paper, 11 percent, in the first and 
7 per cent, in the second; leather, 10 per cent, in the first and 10 per 
cent, in the second; rolled iron, 10 per cent, in the first and 17 in the 
second; pig-iron, 5 per cent, in the first and 17 per cent, in the second; 
glass, 8 per cent, in the first and 6 per cent, in the second; printing, 18 
per cent in the first and 9 per cent, in the second; musical instruments, 

15 per cent, in the first and 9 in the second; agricultural implements, 

3ond; silk, 47 in the first and 15 in the 
indl6 in the'second; boots and shoes, 7 



It will be seen that there were but three exceptions in all the manu¬ 
factured products in the United States. All increa.sed more in the low- 
tariff period than in the high-tariff period except woolen goods and 
rolled iron and pig-iron. There is a substantial reason for each of these 
exceptions. By the tariff of 184:2 all wool under 18 cents a pound was 
dutiable at 5 per cent. By an oversight in the act of 1846 all wool 
Avas dutiable at 30 per cent., which Avas the same as all manufactures 
of Avool. The result Avas that the woolen business was almost destroyed. 
In 1857 all wool under 20 cents Avas free, and for three years the Avoolen 
business increased rapidly and showed by the census of 1860, 43 per 
cent, increase for tl)e decade, the greater part of Avhich increase occurred 
betAveen 1857 and 1860. During the period betAveen 1860 and 1880 
there ha.s been an enormous duty both on wool and woolens, Avhichhas 
given the market almost exclusively to the domestic producer. 

The increase of rolled iron and pig-iron in the high-txriff period is 
due to the great demand for iron and steel rails to meet the extraordi¬ 
nary growth of our railway system during the last twenty years. Our 
own factories were unable to fill the orders, and had to increase their 
CiiiAacity for production to meet the e.xtraordinary demand. It is said 
that a great many furnaces Avent into bankruptcy between 1846 and 
1850. There were some bankrupt estaldi.shinents that failed, but there 
were twenty-seven bhist furnaces started in Pennsylvania during the 
same time. There were 500,000 more tons of coal burned in the iron 
furnaces in that State in 1817 than in 1846, and a million more tons 
in 1850 than in 1846. That does not look like they had been de¬ 
stroyed. The product of iron increased from 1852 to 1856 at55 per cent., 




■while under the high tariff of 1842 it only increased 42 per cent. From 
1852 to 1856 there was the strongest competition the iron interest'ever 
had in the United States. Enormous importations of iron poured in to 
meet the demand of our railroad companies, which were extending their 
lines with ereat rapidity. 

But notwithstanding the severe test to which they were subjected 
they kept their fires lighted, their chimneys smoking, and their anvils 
ringing. They passed the severe ordeal successfully and not only drove 
the foreigner out of the home market but invaded him in the foreign 
market. In 1850 of all the iron consumed in the United States 03 
per cent, was domestic production and 7 per cent, foreign. In 1860, 
with a low revenue tariff of 24 per cent., still of the entire consump¬ 
tion 93 per cent was domestic and 7 imported. Now, that is a very 
important fact for protectionists to consider; but that is not all of it yet. 
In 1870, under a high tariff on iron, only 90 percent, of the consumj>tion 
was made at home, and only 92 per cent, in 1880. Of the home consump¬ 
tion of cottons in 1850, 77 per cent, was domestic production and 23 per 
cent, foreign; while in 1860, when the duty was only 19 per cent., 93 
per cent, was domestic product and 7 per cent, imported. The impor¬ 
tations of cotton decreased 50j3er cent, from 1850 to 1860; but in 1870 
the domestic product, under a high protective tariff, was only 89 per 
cent, and the foreign 11 per cent, of the home consumption, and in 1880 
it was 90 per cent, to 10. 

'"■'Sow what does this prove? It proves conclusively that you can do 
better without commercial restriction than with it. It proves that iron 
f»ud cotton did stand alone without protection and prospered more than 

has done with all its aids. Now why is this? 



^.A Member (to Mr. Mills). Do not hurry. We will extend your 
time. 

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chairman, we gave the gentleman from Pennsyl¬ 
vania [Mr. Kelley] all the time he wanted; will the same courtesy be 
extended to me? If so, I need not talk so fast. 

Mr. McKINLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Texas be allowed all the time he wants. 

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Springer in the chair). The gentleman 
from Texas has sixteen minutes remaining but the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. McKinley] asks unanimous consent that the gentleman have 
leave to continue his remarks so long iis he may desire. The Chair 
hears no objection. 

Mr. MILLS. I thank the committee for its courtesy. 

Have we not heard here all the time that if our tariff is low the pau¬ 
per products of Europe will come in and drive our people into bank¬ 
ruptcy ? This idea arises put of a tohil misapprehension of the whole 
question. As I stated at the outset, every dollar you let come in lets 
another one go out. Wealth is made both by what we import and what 
we export. The more people trade the richer they get, when they 
give a day’s labor for that which would cost them more than a day’s 
labor to produce. Our natural wealth increased from 1850 to 1860 at 
126 per cent, or over 12 per cent, per annum, and from 1860 to 1880 at 
6 per cent, per annum. Wliy did our wealth increase twice as fast under 
a low revenue tariff'as it did under a high protective tariff? It was our 
foreign trade that did it. There is a striking similarity between the 
growth of our national wealth and our foreign trade. From 1830 to 
1850 our national wealth increased 4.72 per cent, per annum. Our 
foreign trade increased for the same times at 3.56 per cent, per annum. 


From 1850 to 1860 our national wealtli increased at 12. 60 per cent, 
per annum and our foreign trade at 11.70 per cent, per annum. From 
1860 to 1880 our national wealth increased at 6.30 per cent, per annum 
and our foreign trade at 5.25 per cent, per annum. It was our grow¬ 
ing commerce that made our wealth grow so fast from 1850 to 1860, and 
that en ibled the people to buy more manufactured products, and that 
increased the domestic production. High tariffs by destroying our com¬ 
merce destroyed our wealth, injured our farmers, and retarded the pro¬ 
duction of our manufiictures. When we struck down our commerce we 
“ killed the goose that laid the golden egg.” 

Let us take one small item to show how exchange makes us grow in 
wealth. In 1872 railway bare were worth $37.50-in England and $75 
here. Now it is evident that with the tariff out of the way $75 would 
add one more ton of railway bars to the wealth of the country if bought 
in England than it would if bought in Pennsylvania. The high tariff 
destroys that value by keeping that ton away; and so it does every 
article it keeps away. We send abroad domestic commodities to the 
amount of $800,000,000. If it were not for the tariff we would send 
more, and then the $800,000,000 would be increased in value 10 or 15 
per cent, and it would bring back things produced at the least cost of 
production abroad, and they would bring additional value to the country. 

If tbe wealth of the country had increased from 1860 to 1880 as it 
did from 1850 to 1860 our national wealth would to-day be over sixty 
billions instead of forty-three. The increasing wealth of the country 
enables the people to purchase and consume more of the products of 
manufacture, and that keeps their laborers engaged and gives them con¬ 
stant employment. When the wealth is decreasing or its rate of in¬ 
crease is slackened the people are less able to satisfy their wants, there 
is less demand for the products of manufacture and less employment 
for their laborers. During the last twelve months numbers of indus¬ 
trial establishments have had their doors closed because the people are 
not able to buy and consume their products. 

My colleague on the committee [Mr. Hewitt] is trying to help the 
manufacturer out by giving him free raw material so that he may go 
into the foreign market, as he can not find a sufficient demand in the 
home market to keep his works going and his laborers employed. His 
measure only gives half relief. I want to give him both the foreign 
and home market and both filled with buyers, who want his products 
and have the capacity to purchase them. That can only be done by 
extending our foreign commerce as far as we possibly can. Not only 
should we put raw materials on the free-list, but the manufiictured, 
product should be burdened as lightly as possible. Would not that 
ruin our manufacturers ? Why 85 or 90 per cent, of all the manu¬ 
factured products of the United States can be made here cheaper than 
they can be produced abroad and delivered here. U: 

If we were to break down all the barriers that stop our trade, and 


support the Government by an income tax, a tax on whisky and some 
other things, and leave our trade as free as possible, the domestic pro¬ 
ducer would supply 85 or 90 per cent, of all the manufactured goods we 
consume. There are many things which we could not supply. There 
are secrets in the manufacture of certain goods which give to certain 
persons the monopoly of their production. There are certain countries 
that are specially adapted to certain manufactures. We do not manu¬ 
facture broadcloths, as I am informed. The finest silks can only be 
produced in the dry climate of France and Italy. I saw a gentleman 


take from his pocket this morning a piece of cloth that is only made 
at one place in the world, and that one place in France. 

Fine laces may be made in Belgium which could not be made here. 
But we can make with the full competition of the world 85 or 90 per 
cent, of the whole amount we consume cheaper than it can be made in 
any foreign country and delivered to us. The history of our manufact¬ 
ures under the tariff of 1857 is proof to my mind of that fact. That 
tariff had duties running down from 24 to 5 per cent., and our manu¬ 
facturers were never so prosperous. Let us look at the exports of 1860. 
That will show the condition of the country, and especially of its man- 
‘ ufactures. 

I have a table here showing the per cent, of annual increase of our 
exports for two periods: one from 1850 to 1860, under low revenue tar¬ 
iffs, and theother from 1860 to 1880, under high protective tariffs. The 
exports of all domestic merchandise increased 12 per cent, per an¬ 
num in the first period and 6 percent, in the second; agricultural 
products, 13 per cent, in the first period and 5 per ffent. in the second; 
domestic manufactures, 12 per cent, in the first period and 5 in the 
second; cotton goods, 13 per cent, in the first period and 5 in the sec¬ 
ond; iron and steel, 19 per cent, in the first period and 5 in the second; 
hats, 20 per cent, in the first period and one-quarter of 1 per cent, in 
the second; boots and shoes, 60 per cent, in the first period and decreased 
in the second; wearing apparel, 15 per cent, in the first period and de¬ 
creased in the second; earthen and stoneware, 30 per cent, in the first 
period and 3 per cent, in the second; glass, 10 per cent, in the first period 
and 9 per cent, in the second; tin, 20 per cent, in the first period and 
14 per cent, in the second. Now, sir, this does not look like breaking 
down our manufacturers by low tariffs. It shows that we not only kept 
our home markets but we were invading the foreign manufacturer in 
the markets of the world, and that our manufacturing industry did 
better under low tariffs than it did under high tariffs designed espe¬ 
cially for its protection. 

But it is contended that high tariffs necessarily make high wages, 
and that the laborer working in the factory is the chief beneficiary of 
that policy. As proof of that we are cited to the fact that our manu¬ 
facturing operatives get higher wages than the same class in England, 
where there is free trade on all the products of manufacture. It would 
be a sufiicient answer to this to say that operatives in England get higher 
wages than operatives of the same class in France and Germany, where 
they have high tariffs as we have here. If it is a logical result that 
follows high tariffs why does it not have the same effect there that it 
does here ? If high wages are produced by high tariffs why is the rate 
of wages different in different localities in the United States? 

The rate of wages paid iron-workers is not the same in Chicago that 
it is in Pittsburgh. The rate of wages paid to cotton-workers is not the 
same in Lowell that it is in Columbus and Atlanta. The tariff is the 
same in all these places; and if the tariff fixed the rate of wages the 
wages would be the same. But the tariff does not regulate the rate of 
wages. It may for a time give higher profits to the manufacturer, but 
it can not compel him to give wages above the market price, and he 
does not do it. Like all other people he buys what he wants at the 
lowest price for which it can be procured, and labor is no exception to 
the rule. Wages are not governed by an act of Congress but by the 
demand for work, and the amormt of work ready to respond to that de- 
m^d and the ability of the employer to pay for it. 


13 


When the people are all prosperous and wealth is accumulating rap¬ 
idly there is a great demand for work, because the wants of a people 
always increase in proportion to their ability to satisfy them. When 
the people are not prosperous and wealth is not rapidly accumulating 
there is a lessening demand for work, becaase there is a lessened ability 
to employ and pay for it. When there is a greiit demand for labor it 
is high. When there is little demand it is low. Now, the question 
which the lalx)rer is interested in determining is how to increase the 
demand for his labor. Labor is high here now compared with what 
it is in Europe, because the deruiind here is greater than the supply, 
and there the supply is greater than the demand. Our country is new, 
theirs is old; our country is sparsely settlerl, theirs is crowded; our 
lands are cheap and rich and theirs are high and worn. Labor is more 
profitable here than there. It can nnike more in a given time here 
than it can there, and the price of the wage is the measure of the value 
of labor, as interest is of the value of money. 

Agriculture is ^le controlling industry that regulates the rate of 
- wages in this coumry, beeause it has three times as many laborers em¬ 
ployed as manufacturers, and more than all other industries combined. 
It controls the price of wages just as the larger market contro'ls the 
prices in the smaller. The markets in New York control the prices in 
Jersey City, and the large quantities of wheat sent by the United States 
and Kussia to England control the prices at which the few thousand 
bushels from Chili and Brazil must be sold in Liverpool and London. 
The constant demand of agriculture to cultivate our cheap and fertile 
lands keeps up the price of labor. And when wages begin to decline 
it is a sure indication that the farmer is not prospering. If wages are 
to stay high, it must l>e because agriculture is profitable. It is indis- 
pensible that the national wealth must be constantly increasing among 
the people to enable them to employ labor. 

When we had low tariffs from 1850 to 1860 the national wealth in¬ 
creased at 126 per cent, and the mte of wages increased at 16 per cent. 
Under the high tariffs from 1860 to 1880 the national wealth increased 
at half that rate and the rate of wages increased at 8 per cent. The 
high tariffs retarded the increase of the fund that employs labor, less¬ 
ened the capacity of the x)eople to pay for it, that lessened the demand, 
and that lowered the price. 

- Now, how is the wealth of the people to be increased and diffused? 
It is by every one working to accomplish the greatest results by his 
toil. The farmer must be permitted to cultivate his field to the best ad¬ 
vantage, and sell his products in the markets that offer the highest prices, 
and buy in the markets that offer the lowest. By that means his wealth 
is increased. He demands more labor to employ his capital and more 
of the pro<lucts of manufacture to satisfy his wants, and that gives in¬ 
creased employment to manufacturing labor. The extent of the con¬ 
sumption of manufixctures depends on the capacity of the people to pur¬ 
chase. And the rate of wages in manufactures depends on the amount 
of consumption. Labor will not be employed to produce faster than the 
product is consumed, and when the consumption is arrested overproduc¬ 
tion soon compels cessation of work, the fires are put out and the laborer 
discharged. 

The purchasing ]>ower of wages is not as great now as it was in 1860. 
The chief of the bureau of statistics of Massachusetts reports that wages 
were 10 per cent. le.ss.valuable in 1881 than in 1860. Why was labor 
less vlauable in 1881 than in 1860 ? Because the people were less 


14 


able to employ labor and consume its products. And why was that 
the case? Because high tariff had prevented them from accumulating 
wealth by buying on the lowest markets and selling on the highest. 
The high tariff now prevailing had reversed the law that governs the 
production of wealth and compelled the farmers, the greatest producers 
of wealth in the country, to sell on the lowest markets and buy on the 
highest. Continue this policy for a few years longer and the most dis- 
tistrous consequences may ensue. Compel the consumers of Europe, 
who are the customers of our farmers, to go elsewhere to find cotton 
and wheat and provisions, and our agriculture falls prostrate in the 
dust. Then the farmer can no longer employ his own operatives, and 
they will be turned loose to seek employment in other industries and 
that will bring the wages of all labor down. Then he will not be able 
i/O consume the products of maiiutacture, and production must stop and 
the manufacturing laborers must be discharged. Then will come a 
period of distress, and in their desperation a few more towns and cities 
may be burned. ^ 

Mr. Chairman, agriculture, manufactures, and commerce are the chief • 
sources of wealth and power in all countries. Each of these great in¬ 
dustries is intimately connected with and dependent upon the others. 
Each rises toward its highest prosperity where all are unfettered and 
free. Each finds its highest development in the highest development 
of the whole. Each receives injury when the growth of the others is 
arrested. It is a delusion to believe that manufactures can be promoted 
by obstructions interposed in the way of the growth of agriculture and 
commerce. Every country that aspires to fill the full measure of its 
greatness and power must cultivate to the highest point every branch of 
its industry and remove from its way every hindering cause that retards 
its progress. Commerce is an indispensable element of national power, \ 
and no country has ever attained great eminence without a large an^-^ 
extended commerce. 

All people of whom we have any account in history have been trad¬ 
ers. The earliest records of the human family show them to us en¬ 
gaged in traffic, and the more they have extended their commerce the 
more they have grown in wealth, progress, and power. In the earlier 
ages of the historic period, as we read in the old book that lies on the 
family table, the Ishmaelitish merchantmen carried the spices and 
balms of Canaan into Egypt and exchanged them for corn. But Israel 
only rose to the highest point of her power and glory when her mer¬ 
chant king pointed her people to the sea, bade them build ports and 
ships and carry the commerce of the world. It was under the illus¬ 
trious son of David that Zebulon became “a haven for ships,” as the 
patriarch had prophesied centuries before. Her capital became re-' 
uowned throughout the earth for its wealth and magnificence. 

The inspired chronicler tells us that he made silver to be as stones in 
Jeru.salem. Amid all the principalities and powers of the East the lit¬ 
tle kingdom of Israel was as a city set upon a hill that could not be hid. 
But her light went out, and she went down ‘ ‘ like a bright exhalation in 
' the evening, ’ ’ when her commerce died with her king. The Phoenicians 
and Carthagenians lived by the shores of the Great Sea and for cen¬ 
turies were the carriers of the world’s commerce, and the wealth and 
splendor of Tyre and Sidon and Carthage are themes that have come 
down through the many centuries that intervene between them and us. 
The Venetians were a feeble people who were driven into the islands of 
the Adriatic by the powerful hordes that overran and devastated South- 


ern Europe, but they cultivated commerce as the only pursuit left them 
by their more powerful masters, and by commerce alone they outstripped 
all the nations of Europe in amassing wealth. Venice was the bank¬ 
ing-house of the world in the Middle Ages and the carrier of its com¬ 
merce; but Venice sank into oblivion when the bond that wedded her 
to the sea was broken. 

History tells us that Holland was once among the great powers of 
Europe, and Amsterdam was the world’s banker, and when we search 
in her history to find that period we find it when her fleets were on all 
the waters of the world, carrying on an extended and growing com¬ 
merce, and when the Dutch admirals carried the inverted broom at 
their masts as a symbol that they swept the seas. Portugal, too, was 
one of the leading powers of the earth, and the page of her history 
points to her meridian when her bold navigators were buffeting with 
storms in the southern ocean hunting a passage around the Cape of 
Good Hope for Portuguese commerce to India. 

Spain, in old ago and decay, the skeleton of that tremendous power 
that once made itsmf felt in all the countries ami climes of the earth, 
recalls a period in her history when she overshadowed the earth with 
her name; when she had colonies on all the continents and among 
all the islands of the seas; when her laws, her language, and her liter¬ 
ature were among all people from the grandees of Castile to the In¬ 
dians and Aztecs of Mexico; but that period she finds was when her 
ships were carr 3 ’'ing rich argosies from the opposite side of the globe 
and pouring them into her lap at Barcelona and Cadiz and Seville. 

In the vicissitudes of national life England stands to-day at the head 
of the column; her wealth was never so vast; her power was never 
so great; her people were never so prosperous, so well fed, so well 
clothed, so well housed, so well contented. She Ciirries more than half 
of the world’s commerce in her bottoms and more than one-fifth of the 
whole is her own. Her capital is to-day the banking-house of the 
world, and though she can not boast of mines of gold she has more 
gold than any nation in Christendom. She is invCvSting in railways, 
mines, and manufactures in all parts of the world, and her invest¬ 
ments are yielding an income that returns to her annually more than 
$;1()0,000,0()0. She has received within the last thirty years in commer¬ 
cial exchange with other people $9,000,000,000 more than she has sent 
away. , 

Wlien we look back through our past history we read on its pages 
that there was a time when American vessels spread their white wings 
to the winds on all the oceans; when the ensign of the Republic was 
seen and known in all the ports and harbors of the globe; when by the 
very spell of its name it gave protection to the person and property of 
its citizens in all kingdoms and countries. Then it was the acknowl¬ 
edged symbol of a free, fearless, and powerful people who were too just 
to ask anything but what was right and too strong to submit to any¬ 
thing that was wrong; then when it rode at the mast of an American 
vessel it consecrated ewery plank on its decks as holy ground, where 
every citizen of the Republic and every stranger within her gates might 
repose with security upon the sinews of a powerful arm. 

It mattered not whether it was an American seaman who had pledged 
his faitli to her Constitution and laws, or a Hungarian exile who had 
been driven by the storms of oppression upon the horns of her altars 
for refuge, the shadow of that flag covered with immunity every one 
>upon whom it fell. Then the poorest and the humblest might go 


whithersoever he would and find shelter and safety in all lands, on all 
seas,.under all skies. Then we had commerce and battle-ships and 
naval power. Where now is that naval armament that once disputed 
with England the sovereignty of the seas ? Where now are our com¬ 
mercial fleets that once shared with her the profits of the carrying trade 
of the world ? Our ships are all rotted, our seamen are all dead. Icha- 
bod is written on the folds of the once powerful ensign of the Repub¬ 
lic, and the eye seeks in vain for its broad stripes and bright stars among 
the ten thousand masts that crowd the harbors of the world. 

God grant that the day may soon come when American ships, freighted 
with American commerce, shall again go to sea under the shield and pro¬ 
tection of our own flag. But if that day is to come it must be preceded 
by a reversal of the policy of commercial restriction. We must re¬ 
move both by legislation and diplomacy every hindering cause that 
prevents the free exchange of the products of our labor in all the 
markets of the world. We must unfetter every arm and let every mus¬ 
cle strike for the highest remuneration for its toil. We must let 
wealth, the creation of labor, grow up in all the homes of our people. 
Then every industry will spring forward at a bound, and wealth, pros¬ 
perity, and power will bless the land that is dedicated to free men, 
free labor, and free trade. [Loud applause.] 


REDUCTION OF TAXATION. 



‘o money from the people 
Government; and if tliey raise m^re thln^i^ entrusted to the 

abuse of the power of ta.vation and uniust ^^^san 

pen that the revenue will sometimes Sceed tliP^n^!,®'^^''^®' indeed hap- 

taxes were laid. When, however thil iraspiip;^«^°u^-^ anticipated when the 
and in such a case it is unquestioimblv thp S f is easy to reduce them; 
tliem, for no circumstances can iustifv^'t in Government to reduce 

Constitution, nor in taking awaAhe^monev oA*hp”nthe 
for the legttimate wants of the Oovemn,e„l-jirfaS/ore!ie« idTesi""''*''* 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON. CHAELES H. MORGAN, 

OF MilSSOXJRl, 

IN THE 


HOUSE OF representatives, 


Monday, May 5, 1884. 


WASHINGTON. 

1884. 








SPEECH 


OF 

HON. CHAELES H. MOEGAN. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5893) to reduce importduties and 
war-tariff taxes— 

Mr. MORGAN said: 

Mr. Chairman : I thank the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Cook] for 
yielding a part of his time to me to-night. It is not my purpose to 
speak upon the general subject of the tariff, but I have a word to say in 
favor of a reduction of taxes. The bill under consideration has my hearty 
support. It reduces unnecessary taxation, and such reduction is made 
on the duties upon imports alone. It increases the free-list by adding 
thereto the following articles: 

Salt, in bags, sacks, barrels, or other packages, or in bulk. 

Coal, slack or culm. 

Coal, bituminous or shale. 

Provided, That this shall not apply to coal imported from the Dominion of 
Canada until that government shall have exempted from the payment of duty 
all coal imported into that country from the United States. 

Timber, hewn and sawed, and timber used for spars and in building wharves. 

Timber, squared or sided, not specially enumerated or provided for in this 
act. 

Sawed boards, plank, deals, and other lumber of hemlock, whitewood, syca¬ 
more, and basswood, and all other articles of sawed lumber. 

Hubs for wheels, posts, last blocks, wagon blocks, oar blocks, gun blocks, 
heading blocks, and all like blocks or sticks, rough-hewn or sawed only. 

Staves of wood of all kinds. 

Pickets and palings. 

Laths. 

Shingles, 

Pine clapboards. 

Spruce clapboards. 

Wood, unmanufactured, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act— 

All of them of common use throughout the country. It will cheapen 
the expenses of living and add to the savings of the people. It is, in 
fact, a measure to reduce war-tariff taxes, w hich are no longer required 
for the support of the Government or the payment of the national debt. 

From the year 1865 to the year 1883, inclusive, there has been col¬ 
lected by the Government in the shape of taxes the sum of $6,740,- 
246,000 in round numbers. These figures are taken from the published 
official statement from the Treasury Department, warrant division, 
dated August 20, 1883. This sum is the remainder, after subtracting 
from the net revenue of the Government the amount received from the 
sale of public lands, the sales of public land during these years yielding 
less than $43,000,000. 

The mind of man is incapable of comprehending the sum so paid by 
the people, and by subdividing it alone can we obtain a realizing sense 
of its magnitude. Let us distribute it to counties according to their 





4 


population; for by the system under which our taxes are collected com¬ 
munities pay in the ratio of population instead of wealth. This will 
show that a county with a population of 25,000, or equal to that of 
Henry or Cass or Bates, in the State of Missouri, have contributed the 
sum of $180,000 per annum. These figures are startling, hut verify 
them, as you easily may, and they will be proved substantially correct. 

These burdens have been patiently borne, although they have been 
most oppressive. No small portion has been for extravagance and not for 
the necessary expenses of Government, while millions of dollars have 
been stolen outright. The payment of this amount without complaint 
shows the grand resources of the nation and the patriotism of the peo¬ 
ple. During this time legislation has not always been for the purpose 
of making the payment of taxes easy. Contracts for the payment of a 
large portion of the bonded debt of the United States have been changed, 
and bonds payable under the original contract in lawful money have 
been by act of Congress made payable in coin alone. During a portion 
of this time there was no law authorizing the coinage of silver, and in 
their hour of extremest need the people were deprived of the benefit 
of the mines of the West, with their untold millions of uncoined silver 
dollars. 

Instead of wisely using the public lands for the legitimate purposes 
of the Government, a large portion of them have been granted to rail¬ 
road companies. Public domain greater in area than the State of Mis¬ 
souri at one Congress has been diverted from the purposes to which it 
was dedicated in the earlier days of the Republic, namely, for homes 
for the people, and conveyed to moneyed corporations under circum¬ 
stances so scandalous as to weaken confidence in Congress. 

At last, after all these years, we find a surplus of revenue in the Treas¬ 
ury, and the people supposed that the rate of taxation would be at once 
reduced. President Arthur called attention to the fact, and suggested 
a reduction of taxation two years ago. The matter was discussed in 
the Forty-seventh Congress. The friends of a low taritf insisted that 
a reduction should be made in the rate of duties upon customs and fa¬ 
vored a revision of the tariff laws. The representatives in Congress of 
the interest receiving protection insisted upon the appointment of a 
commission to investigate the question, gather information, and report 
to Congress. 

The friends of revenue reform were defeated, and the ‘ ‘ commission 
bill ” passed Congress and became a law. At the time it was earnestly 
insisted by Democratic members that it was a delusion, and it was not 
intended by a majority in Congress that it should result in a reduction 
of tariff taxation. The commission was appointed by the President, and 
composed of men who were well known as protectionists, many of them 
being personally interested in a high protective tariff. Notwithstand¬ 
ing the composition of this commission, it reported to the Forty-seventh 
Congress in favor of a tariff reduction, using the following language: 

Early in its deliberations the commission became convinced that a substan¬ 
tial reduction of tariff duties is demanded, not by a mere indiscriminate popu¬ 
lar clamor, but by the best conservative opinion of the country, including that 
which has in former times been most strenuous for the preservation of our 
national industrial defenses. Such a reduction of the existing tariff the com¬ 
mission regards not only as a due recognition of public sentiment and a measure 
of justice to consumers, but one conducive to the general industrial prosperity, 
and which, though it may be temporarily inconvenient, will be ultimately bene¬ 
ficial to the special interests affected by such reduction. 

* • * • ♦ ♦ * 

Excessive duties generally, or exceptionally high duties in particular cases, 


discredit our whole national economic system and furnish plausible arguments 
for its complete subversion. They serve to increase uncertainty on the part of 
industrial enterprise, whether it shall enlarge or contract its operations, and 
take from commerce as well as production the sense of stability required for ex¬ 
tended undertakings. It would seem that the rates of duties under existing 
tarifl'—fixed for the most part during the war, under the evident necessity at that 
time of stimulating to its utmost extent all domestic production—might be 
adapted through reduction to the present condition of peace, requii-ing no such 
extraordinary stimulus. And in the mechanical and manufacturing industries, 
especially those which have been long established, it would seem that the im¬ 
provements in machinery and pi'ocesses made within the last twenty years, and 
the high scale of productiveness which has become a characteristic of their estab¬ 
lishments, would permit our manufacturers to compete with their foreign rivals 
under a substantial reduction of existing duties. 

Entertaining these views, the commission has sought to present a scheme of 
tariff'duties in which substantial reduction should be thedistingui.shing feature. 
The average reduction in rates, includingthatfrom the enlargement of the free¬ 
list and the abolition of the duties on charges and commissions, at which the 
commission has aimed, is not less on the average than 20 per cent., and it is the 
opinion of the commission that the reduction will reach 25 per cent.” 

The Committee on Ways and Means of the House, with the distin¬ 
guished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kelley] at its head, took up 
the matter for consideration, and reported a bill to the House which, in¬ 
stead of reducing the tariff 25 per cent., as recommended by the com¬ 
mission and warranted by the condition of the Treasury, made a re¬ 
duction of less than 2 per cent. 

This bill, amended and changed in many particulars, passed Congress 
and received the signature of the President, and is now known as the 
“ tariff law of 1883.” Against its passage the revenue reformers were 
solidly arrayed under those able leaders Carlisle and Morrison. 
The supporters of the measure, led by Kelley, McKinley, and Has¬ 
kell, were only victorious by the aid of Eandall, of Pennsylvania, 
and a small following of protection Democrats. 

The people were not then and are not now satisfied with the action 
of that Congress. They expected, and had a right to expect, such a re¬ 
duction of taxation that no more money should be taken from them than 
actually necessary for the expenses of Government. The last report of 
the Secretary of the Treasury shows that there was remaining in the 
Treasury at the close of the last fiscal year about ^150, OoO, 000, and the 
effect of the tariff law of 1883 is now sufficiently known to warrant 
the opinion that with an honest and economical administration of pub¬ 
lic affairs this surplus will not be diminished, but continue to increase 
year by year. 

Even the advocates of a protective tariff admit that this condition 
should not and can not remain, and they have proposed various expe¬ 
dients and schemes to get rid of the surplus in the Treasury without 
abatement or reduction of tariff taxation. This is not strange; such 
an amount of money lying idle in the Treasury invites schemers and 
corruptionists. 

One distinguished gentleman, a most prominent candidate from the 
far East for the Presidency, Mr. Blaine, proposes to solve the problem 
by turning over to the States the entire amount of money received into 
the Treasury from taxation of spirits. This is not only a bid for pop¬ 
ularity and a bribe held out to the States, but it \yill permit the pres¬ 
ent high protective tariff to remain and even to be increased. It would 
relieve the States of the payment of taxes and change the entire system 
of tax-paying there. Under the State laws the revenue neces.sary for 
the State purposes is derived by a tax upon property. Under the tariff 
and internal-revenue system of taxation revenue is derived from the 


6 


individuals according to what they may use, and a laboring man with 
a wife and children may, and often does, pay more for the support of the 
Government than a millionaire. Such a change would he in the inter¬ 
est of rich people and against the interest of the poor. 

Another candidate from the West [General Logan] proposes, by means 
of the Blair bill, to get rid of the surplus revenue by establishing a 
system of Federal education—a most dangerous and unconstitutional 
proposition, and which, if enacted into law, will go further toward 
centralization of power in the Federal Government than all the legis¬ 
lation in the last twenty-five years. 

Others propose the erection of expensive public buildings throughout 
the United States, and to-day we have on the Calendar bills which are 
proposed to be passed this session erecting a public building in every 
district whose Representative has apj)lied for one. New and extrava¬ 
gant schemes for the improvement of rivers and harbors before unheard 
of have been made. Every possible device is to be resorted to in order 
to spend the money of the people and keep up the protective tariff. 

Another plan, and one which in my opinion will finally be adopted 
by the protectionists, is to abolish entirely the internal-revenue tax. 
To each and every one of these schemes I am unalterably opposed. 
The idea of meeting the excess of revenue collected by extravagant ex¬ 
penditures is absurd. It can never be carried out. The people will 
never submit to it; but we must expect no easy victory. 

Nearly half a century ago Andrew Jackson, in his great address to 
the American people, said: 

Rely upon it, the design to collect an extravagant revenue and to burden you 
with taxes beyond the economical wants of the Government is not yet aban¬ 
doned. The various interests which have combined together to impose a tariff 
and to produce an overflowing Treasury are too strong and have too much at 
stake to surrender the contest. The corporations and wealthy individuals who 
are engaged in large manufacturing establishments desire a high tariff to in¬ 
crease their gains. Designing politicians will support it to conciliate their favor 
and to obtain the means of profuse expenditure for the purpose of purchasing 
influence in other quarters. 

This is the language of a Democrat and a statesman, and is as true of 
to-day as of the time it was uttered. 

I will now for a moment consider the proposition of abolishing the 
internal-revenue tax. The taxes upon tobacco and upon liquors are 
voluntary; no one is compelled to pay them, for these articles are not 
necessary to life, comfort, or happiness. Those who have the money 
to spend can indulge in the luxury of tobacco, and the same is true of 
liquors. No one is obliged to indulge in them. In fact, the use of 
liquor is in itself pernicious; it brings no happiness, but, on the con¬ 
trary, it results in suffering and misery. It is the last article from 
which taxation should be removed. The people to-day are not suffer¬ 
ing for cheap whisky. Those who drink it are willing to pay the tax. 
No law is necessary to remove this tax. Those who are opposed to it 
can refuse to pay it by leaving off the use of it. In doing this, and 
thus refusing to pay this tax, they will not be prosecuted and pun¬ 
ished by the Government, nor will they suffer any privation. I would 
leave the remedy against high taxes on whisky and tobacco to the peo¬ 
ple in their individual capacity. Whenever they are ready to abate 
these taxes, in whole or in part, they can do so by simplj'^ abstaining 
from the use of the articles. 

Any person opposed to paying a tax on whisky can carry out that op¬ 
position as an individual, and refuse to pay another'cent of tax upon 


7 

it, and to such refusal no penalty is attached, hut a reward is offered 
and paid in increase of wealth, happiness, and honor. 

I shall oppose the removal or reduction of the tax upon spirits, and 
insist upon the reduction of taxation upon the necessaries of life. I 
would make as cheap and as free as possible the food for the people; as 
cheap as possible what they are obliged to wear; and in the third place, 
would cheapen all articles that go into the homes of the farmers, the 
laboring men, and of every other class who are compelled to earn their 
living by their own exertions. 

All over the Western country to-day, out upon the prairies and in the 
forests and among the mountains, there are thousands struggling to 
build up homes, many of them commencing with less than the sufficient 
amounts to purchase the lands upon which they are living at Govern¬ 
ment prices. Let us shape the laws of the country to protect these men. 
Let us aid them in their struggle for existence. Let Congress enable 
them to build good houses to live in by giving them free lumber and 
cheap building material, and then cheapen all articles that go into those 
houses to furnish and fit them for pleasant homes. Let us cheapen the 
food upon their tables, and everything necessary to life, comfort, and 
happiness. When we reflect upon their condition, when we consider 
their labors, privations, and hardships, it seems to me that the propo¬ 
sition to cheapen liquors or tobacco in order that you may increase or 
k'Cep up their taxes is the most unstatesmanlike and wicked measure 
ever devised by the ingenuity of man. To abolish the internal-revenue 
taxes and refuse to reduce tariff taxes would encourage the production 
and consumption of liquor and tobacco at the expense of hard-working, 
honest, and intelligent citizens of the country, who alone contribute to 
its greatness. 

Gentlemen say the present bill will not accomplish the result we 
seek. They object to the peculiar features of this bill known as the 
“horizontal cut.” I have heard this objection urged on every hand, 
in season and out of season, since it was first reported by the distin¬ 
guished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Morrison] from the Committee 
on Ways and Means, and have never heard it urged by a single indi¬ 
vidual who is in favor of lower tariff. It is always urged by the friends 
of protection. 

You tell us that what we need is a thorough revision of the tariff. 
We know that this is impossible at the present time, and if attempted 
would meet with the united opposition of all the protectionists on both 
sides of this House, and if by good fortune it should pass here would 
be defeated in the Senate, now controlled by the Republican party. 
We have therefore, and as we still think wisely, attempted nothing of 
the kind, but have provided for a reduction of overtaxation by the tariff. 
This bill will reduce taxation at lea.st $100,000,000 per annum, and it 
is estimated will reduce the yearly revenue derived from duties on im¬ 
ports nearly half this amount. Applying the same rule used by me a 
few minutes ago, that these tariff taxes fall upon counties in about the 
ratio their population is to that of the whole country, we obtain a sav¬ 
ing to each of the four largest counties in my district—Bates, Henry, 
Cass, and Vernon—of about $50,000 per annum, and more than half 
this sum to each of the four smaller counties, namely. Barton, Dade, 
Cedar, and Saint Clair. To aid in accomplishing this result I have 
bent all my energies and will continue the work to the end. 

The gentlemen on the other side of the House say that this bill does 
not remove the inequalities and incongruities of the present law. You 


y 


/ 


8 


forget if there are inequalities and discriminations and inconsistencies 
that you alone are responsible for them. You made this law against 
our protest, against our votes, and you are estopped from denouncing it 
DOW. We know the law is a bad one, and we propose to revise it when¬ 
ever we have the power. If the present bill is defeated and no reduc¬ 
tion in taxation is made we are sure to return to this House in sufficient 
numbers to pass any bill we see fit to pass. Defeat this measure for 
the partial relief of an overtaxed people, and we will have the power, 
not only in the House of Eepresentatives but in the Senate of the 
United States, to pass a law revising the tariff. Defeat this bill, and 
the people will elect a President who will approve any bill that may be 
presented to him by Congress revising the tariff and making it for pur¬ 
poses of revenue alone. For the time will come, and shortly too, when 
the people will declare that the power to levy and collect taxes is lim¬ 
ited and confined to purposes of Government alone, and that no power 
exists to compel one citizen to contribute money or labor for the use 
and benefit of another. And I expect a declaration upon this subject 
at Chicago in the coming July convention of the national Democracy 
in sentiment and language like this: 

We denounce the present tariff, levied upon nearly 4,000 articles, as a master¬ 
piece of injustice, inequality, and false pretense. It yields a dwindling not a 
yearly rising revenue. It has impoverished many industries to subsidize a few. 
It prohibits imports that might purchase the products of American labor. It has 
degraded American commerce from the first to an inferior rank on the high seas. 
It has cut down the sales of American manufactures at home and abroad and 
depleted the returns of American agriculture—an industry followed by half of 
our people. It costs the people five times more than it produces to the Treas¬ 
ury, obstructs the processes of production, and wastes the fruits of labor. It pro¬ 
motes fraud, fosters smuggling, enriches dishonest officials, and bankrupts hon¬ 
est merchants. We demand that all custom-house taxation shall be only for 
revenue .—Democratic National Platform, 1876. 

Or this: 

Home rule, honest money, consisting of gold, silver, and paper convertible on 
demand ; the strict maintenance of the public faith. State and national, and a 
tariff for revenue only.—Democratic National Platform, 1880. 

Any party, or faction of a party, refusing relief to the people from 
war taxes after twenty years of uncomplaining payment, and when the 
necessities of the Government no longer require their payment, is un¬ 
worthy of support and will be condemned at the polls. 

There can be no doubt of our triumph in this House. We will pass 
this bill, with but few changes, this session I sincerely hope and be¬ 
lieve; but if we fail, we will go before the people at the coming election 
and ask indorsement of our course, and returning with their vindica¬ 
tion go forward to victory. 


O 


COINAGE, SILVEE-OEETIFIOATES, AND 
UNITED STATES NOTES. 




SPEECH 


OF THE 

HON. JUSTIN S. MORRILL, 

OW 'V^ERMIONT, 

IN THE 

SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 


December 5, 1883, 


SENATE BILL Q26. 


WASHINGTON. 

1883. 




h 


SPEECH 


OF 

HON. JUSTIN S. MORRILL. 


THE COINAGE. 

Mr. MORRILL asked and, by unanimous consent, obtained leave to 
bring in the following bill; which was read twice, and ordered to lie 
on the table: 

A bill relating to coinage, .silver certificates, and United States notes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Eej)reseniatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That the coinage in the mints of the United States 
of all silver coins, the one-dollar and three-dollar gold coins, the five-cent and 
three-cent nickel coins, and the one-cent coin made chiefiy or in part of copper, 
is hereby suspended except as hereinafter provided. 

Sec. 2. That the standard of silver coins in the United States shall hereafter be 
such that, of one thousand parts by weight, nine hundred and twenty-five parts 
shall be pure silver and seventy-five parts alloy, and the alloy shall be copper. 

Sec. 3. That all fractional silver coins whicli may be hereafter coined shall 
contain silver equal in proportion to their nominal value; that is to say, a half- 
dollar shall contain 50 per cent., the quarler-dollar shall contain 25 per cent., the 
dime 10 jicr cent., and the half-dime 5 per cent, of the amount of silver in the 
• standard silver dollar. 

Sec. 4. That whenever the coinage of silver shall be resumed, the fractional 
silver now in the Treasury, or which may hereafter be received, shall be used 
for any new silver coinage; and new silver coins shall be exchangeable at par 
at the mints, at the discretion of the Superintendent, for any other silver coins 
heretofore authorized by law. 

Sec. 5. That the standard for the one-cent coinage shall be nickel and copper, 
to be composed of not less than three-fourths nickel and one-fourth copper. 

Sec. 6. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and hereby is, authorized and 
directed, on and after the 1st day of July, 1884, not to reissue any United States 
notes of the denomination of 12 then in the Treasury, or which may thereafter 
be received; and on and after the 1st day of January, 1885, to cancel, destroy, 
and not reissue all United States notes of a less denomination than $5 in the 
Treasury, or thereafter received, and to cease engraving or printing all such 
notes. 

Sec. 7. That .so much of section 3 of the act of February 28, 1878, entitled “An 
act to authorize the coinage of the standard silver dollar, and to restore its legal- 
tender character,” as authorizes the depo.sit of coin “ with the Treasurer or any 
assistant treaurer of the United States in sums not less than SlO, and receive 
therefor certificates of not less than SIO each, corresponding with the denomi¬ 
nation of the United States notes,” is hereby repealed; but all such silver cer¬ 
tificates outstanding on the pas.sage of this act shall continue to have the .same 
force and effect as if this .section had not been enacted. 

Sec. 8. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and is hereby, authorized and 
directed to purchase as bullion any trade-dollars which may be presented pre¬ 
vious to the 1st day of February, 1884, in sums of not less than •'120, and to pay 
therefor the market value of silver bullion when so presented, and in addition 
-per cent, premium. 

Sec. 9. That the Director of the Mint is hereby authorized and directed to 
employ, temporarily, five artists or persons distinguished in dei)artments of art, 
or in knowledge of coinage and medals, to be approved by the Secretary of the 
Treasury, who shall investigate and examine the whole subject of our exi.sting 
system of coinage, with a view to its improvement and greater perfection of 
execution as to metals, relative value, and also as to devices, legends, and in¬ 
scriptions ; and the artists or persons .so employed shall each be paid out of the 





4 


contingent fund provided for the support of the Mint the sum of S2,500; and ^nj 
artist or pe son whose designs for any coin shall be accej)ted and adopted as 
hereinafter^ Provided for shall be paid the sum of S750 for each design so accepted 
and adopte I. 

Sec. 10. That on or before the 1st day of March, 1884, the Secretary of the Treas¬ 
ury, the Secretary of State, and the Director of the Mint shall examine the work 
and designs, together Avith any explanations submitted by the artists or other 
persons as mentioned in the preceding section, and shall transmit the same, ac¬ 
companied by a report, to Congress, with such recommendations as they shall 
judge most expedient. 

Sec. 11. That at the expiration of each fiscal year the Director of the Mint shall 
cause an examination to be made of all the medals executed at the mint in Phil¬ 
adelphia; and the sum of $1,000 shall be paid out of the contingent fund for the 
support of the Mint to the engraver whose workmanship shall appear to have 
been the best. 

Mr. MORRILL said : 

Mr. President : The topic I shall mainly discuss to-day, and which, 
perhaps, I have most at heart, is the improvement of our fractional 
silver and other minor coinage; not, however, without bestowing some 
attention to collateral subjects of perhaps equal importance, embraced 
in the bill already presented by me to the Senate. 

The problem of a universal legal-tender coinage has long perplexed 
the world; and the vast extension of modern commerce, with the fluct¬ 
uating supplies of the precious metals, tends to perpetuate its difficul¬ 
ties; but American interests are too great to be surrendered to the 
blunders of others or of ourselves, whether of action or non-action. 
Having the primacy in the production of the precious metals, shall we 
not refuse to confess that we know not how to handle them, neither for 
our own nor for the general good? 

PRESENT COINAGE. 

The present unsatisfactory condition of our gold and silver coinage, 
as well as of the token coinage, appears to me so pronounced as to de¬ 
mand the serious and early attention of the Senate. Though nominally 
representing the double standard, their relative proportional value is a 
fiction too gross to endure; and when the fiction explodes, as some¬ 
time it must explode, the heaviest loss will fall upon those least able 
to bear it. The law from Mount Sinai is against “ divers weights, great 
and small. ’ ’ Our silver coins, and all the minor coins, are practically 
nothing more than tokens, representing values received for them much 
above their actual value. If the Government were poor, or its credit 
strained, such indirect gains might be winked at and tolerated; but the 
United States, now in full vigor and united manhood, with an over¬ 
flowing treasury, have no excuse for maintaining such conflicting stand¬ 
ards, and such paltry sources of unnecessary revenue, and by expedients 
which have grown to be inexcusable. 

We have a system of internal taxation, and a tariff upon imports; and 
also, as a supplement beyond all this, a forced contribution levied upon 
our people of nearly 15 cents upon every silver dollar that comes forth 
from the Mint; and much more, or to over one-fifth part of the nominal 
value, upon all other silver coinage. This may not improperly be styled 
tyranny tempered by alloy. 

Congress, however, having the exclusive power to coin money, is under 
the highest promptings of duty to provide the soundest and safest known 
to the world; and its duty is equally grave to protect the people against 
raising revenue, much or little, directly or indirectly, by debased coin¬ 
age, or by a policy not based upon inf rinsic value, which has never failed 
to blot the good name of any government that has ventured to try the 
disastrous exj>eriment. 


o 


Blit we do not seem to blush at these profits, whether arising from 
silver or even copper coinage. When the copper cent was originally 
authorized by the United States the first importation of copper—and 
then all had to be imported—cost over 43 cents per pound, or three 
times as much as it does to-day, when the cent contains less than one- 
fifth of the wdight originally proposed. Copper is now hardly worth 
more than some of the baser metals—less than the best cust-steel—and 
perhaps not so much as the iron anciently used as money in Sparta, or 
even as the iron and tin once used in England. Hamilton, whom Jef¬ 
ferson styled a “Colossus,” with his usual extraordinary foresight, 
doubted whether copper would long remain fit for money. 

When our silver dollars were first authorized their intrinsic value 
was equal to their nominal value, and no more were coined than were 
wanted for circulation. This was the doctrine and practice of our 
fathers. Now the actual value of the .silver dollar is 85^ cents, in¬ 
stead of 93 cents in 1878, at the start of compul.sory coinage ; and we 
are daily doing all we can to depre.ss its value at home by laborious ad¬ 
ditions to the enormous pile in the Treasury, until it threatens to topple 
over, carrying with it its false and flimsy scatfolding of equivocating 
silver certificates, which, when redeemed, must be redeemed in a metal 
of quite another color. Silver will not be siccepted for certificates while 
anything much better can be had. The accumulated tons of silver dol¬ 
lars now held by the Treasury are a conspicuous overproduction, rec¬ 
ognized, distrusted, and avoided by everybody. A glut appears for the 
moment to make silver, as it does any other commodity, scarcely worth 
having. Thus we appear to have, so to say, an “elephant” on hand, 
which, although white, not even Barnum will take off our hands; and 
which is not only difficult to keep, but, wherever .sent, there are neither 
cages nor pockets ready to receive or to hold. 

AVe are compelled to seek and to use at least 124,000,000 of revenue 
annually, with an option which allows the use of fortj^-eight million, 
above all that would otherwise be required, in order to perpetuate the 
colossal folly of hoarding 3,455 tons of silver dollars, 742 tons of frac¬ 
tional silver, and 140 tons of silver bullion, as useless, either to the Gov¬ 
ernment or to the people, as the buried treasure of Captain Kidd. 

SILVER CERTIFICATES. 

Let me say at once that it is not proposed to deprive outstanding sil¬ 
ver certificates of any existing functions. Let the nearly one hundred 
millions now afloat circulate with all of their privileges, but their bulk, 
already excessive, cannot be increased without danger to our whole 
monetary system. 

It may be falsely supposed that the large, constant, and unending 
accumulation of silver dollars in the Treasury is squarely there for the 
redemption of outstanding silver certificates, but not one of these cer¬ 
tificates ever has been or ever will be presented by the holder for redemp¬ 
tion in silver. They will all turn up and be tendered at the custom¬ 
house, in.steadofgold, the fir.st moment our exchanges feel the shock of 
an adverse balance of trade, or whenever there is an excess ot imports 
over exports; and then the real difference between the standard of our 
gold and silver coins will become painfully manifest. AA^e are bound 
by law to accept and receive silver certificates, in violation of our pledged 
public faith, as the equivalent of gold, at the custom-house. AVhen the 
contingency occurs, exposing the hollow truce existing between our 
gold and silver .standards, gold will become a fugitive and sink below the 
horizon, and a flickering single standard of silver, whether up or down. 


6 


will become domiiiaiit. The disastrous effects thus to arise can not 
fail to disjoint our whole commerce, and will invade the home of every 
wage-receiving laborer of the country. Failing to keep our proper 
share of the products of our own gold mines, as well as silver, all the 
evils of a suddenly depreciated currency will be sure to revisit us, and 
with a proclamation that they come to stay. The Pactolian stream of 
gold will then cease to flow into the Treasury, and instead will come 
the juiceless flood of silver certificates. 

Does any one propose that we shall step down and out from among 
leading industrial and commercial nations, by having hereafter to base 
all of our financial and business interests exclusively on silver ? Can any 
one propose at a blow to cut down the wages of labor and the terms of 
all contracts to the extent of 15 or 20 per cent.? Must all of our trade 
and business enterprises be kept forever on the lookout for a financial 
convulsion, suspended only by a hair’s breadth in the rate of exchange? 
It not, then may I not hope that all will unite upon some proper and 
conservative measure that will save to our people the use of both gold 
and silver? At this moment the amount of silver dollars and fractions 
in the Treasury, never used except in very small sums, and never 
hoarded, is preposterously large in proportion to the amount of gold 
coins, which always have been and must continue to be used for all of 
the hundred-fold larger transactions. 

TEMPORARY SUSPENSIOX OE COINAGE. 

A temporary suspension of the coinage of silver can not reduce the 
amount in circulation in the least, as it will manifestly be impossible 
for several years to wholly exhaust the extensive stock now in the over¬ 
loaded vaults of the Treasury; and all those whose opinions are most 
entitled to our respect advise that such a suspension will be the only 
effective policy to checkmate the anti-silver fanaticism supposed to pre¬ 
vail among some foreign nations. It would be stupid to suppose that 
these nations will ever abandon their gold policy while we are exerting 
our utmost power to sustain it, not here but there, by rolling out of 
their path the chief obstacle which blocks their way, but which, like 
the rock of Sisyphus, always rolls back to crush ourselves. 

A temporary suspension is also indispensable to enable us to reform 
and to vastly improve our annual display of coinage, which in 1882 was 
equal in amount to oiie-half of the combined annual coinage of all other 
leading commercial nations. 

The purpose of the proposition to cease issuing one and two dollar 
United States notes is to bring into circulation a larger amount of sil¬ 
ver dollars. The money-order system and postal notes of the Post-Office 
Department—likely, as I am informed, soon to be greatly improved— 
fully demonstrate that small bills are no longer indispensable for re¬ 
mittances, and may properly be pushed aside to make room for silver 
dollars. 

COINAGE ACTS. 

In discussing the bill I have introduced, I trust I may be excused for 
briefly referring to past and existing legislation, although the tacts may 
be in all the horn-books of Congressional students. 

By our first coinage act of 1792, based on the plan presented by Jef¬ 
ferson in 1787, one ounce of gold was made the equivalent of fifteen in 
silver: and the gold eagle, eleven-twelfths fine, weighed 270 grains. 
This i)roved to be an undervaluation of silver until 1834, when the gold 
eagle was reduced in weight to 258 grains, and slightly further reduced 
by alloy to a fraction below nine-tenths fine, or to eight hundred and 


7 


ninety-nine and two-tenths thonsandths. This made the value of the 
new eagle 66.68 cents less than the old. The half-eagle of 129 grains 
and the quarter-eagle of 64.j grains were of the same fineness. In 1837 
the gold coinage was raised to nine-tenths fine, and the ratio to silver 
has since been one to sixteen. The double-eagle first appeared in 1849, 
and the gold dollar in 1853. 

In 1792 it was provided by Congress that a silver dollar “ of the value 
of a Spanish milled dollar, as the same is now current, ’ ’ should be 
coined, and if first appeared in 1794, weighing 416 grains, and it con¬ 
tained 371^ grains of pure silver. By the act of 1837 the rate was 
reduced to 412.j grains, but the amount of pure silver was unchanged. 

In 1851 the three-cent silver coin was authorized .750 fine, weighing 
12| grains. 

By the act of 1853 all the fractions of the silver dollar were reduced 
to the ratio of 384 grains to the dollar, nine-tenths fine, and regulated by 
the metric system of weights, or for halves 12 J grams, quarters 6} grams, 
and dimes 2y\ grams; but the weight of the three-cent piece was changed 
to three-fiftieths of the half-dollar, or to 11.52 grains. This was an un¬ 
fortunate degradation of these coins, compensated by nothing gained 
abroad, and doomed them to much loss of prestige at home. Jefierson 
denied the right of Congress to lessen the value of coins. In conse¬ 
quence of this 7 per cent, shortage of silver in the half-dollars, we no 
longer largely export them, as we did formerly, to South America and 
the West Indies, but peddle them out in drilfidets at home, where they 
are reluctantly received as “Hobson’s choice.” 

If gold had no foothold in our country from 1792 to 1834, silver had 
as little from 1837 to 1853, when it was suddenly cheapened and rein¬ 
stated. It will be obsen^ed that when the merest fraction of difi’erence 
occurs in the standard value of gold and silver coinage the undervalued 
coin becomes the sole coin in circulation, increasing its prerogatives as 
its merits diminish, and inexorably banishes that which is of superior 
value. 

By the act of March 3, 1865, when we were, perhaps, more humble 
than we have been since, the legend of “In God we trust” was au¬ 
thorized upon all our coins. In 1873 we appear to have lapsed into 
incredulity, and this inscription was omitted; but at the same time the 
coinage acts were all revised and the trade-dollar had its ill-omened 
birth. No other important change was made, except that the old sil¬ 
ver dollar, then the Delilah of nobody, was left out, and for the reiison 
that none had been coined for many years, none were called for, and « 
none could then have been coined without a positive loss to the Gov- • 
ernment. 

TRADE-DOLLAR. 

The trade-dollar, of unusual weight, was authorized in consequence 
of an urgent commercial demand presented exclusively by those en¬ 
gaged in the trade with China, who paid the IMint the cost of its man¬ 
ufacture. It bore its exceptional character on its face, as a piece of sil¬ 
ver weighing 420 grains, nine-tenths fine. It was very awkwardly in¬ 
cluded as a legal tender, to the amount of $5, piong fractional sil¬ 
ver coins, but was known to be worth as bullion 3 or 4 per cent, 
more than its legal-tender value, which wholly precluded it from any 
such use. AVhen, however, silver began to droop in price, it was plain 
that many of the 30,834,360 trade-dollars which had been exported 
might, much to our disadvantage, be returned to our hands; and, there¬ 
fore, by the joint resolution of the House of Representatives, July 22, 


8 


1876 (introduced by Mr. Randall), to which all parties promptly as¬ 
sented, the non-used legal-tender power of the trade-dollar was with¬ 
drawn, but it remained at per cent, above par for a year and a half 
afterward. Since then, silver bullion having diminished in value, this 
commercial rover thrusts itself in our faces and demands to be counted, 
with all the privileges of our eldest born, or as it might have been if it 
had always belonged to our domestic family of coins, and had not worn 
on its face the indelible brand of inferiority. The legend, ‘ ‘ In G-od we 
trust,” still lingering on this nondescript dollar, is an apt reminder of 
a coin of Pope Innocent the Eleventh, when under great apprehensions 
from the King of France, which bore the inscription of “Help, Lord, or 
else I perish,” with the figure of Saint Peter vainly trying, like our dol¬ 
lar, to walk on the waters, and piously calling for help. One other 
eccentricity may also be noticed, not unlike that on the coins of Crom¬ 
well, upon one side of which appeared “God with us,” and upon the 
other side, “The Commonwealth of England.” This caused a cava¬ 
lier with some wit to say, ‘ ‘ God and the Commonwealth are on differ¬ 
ent sides.” The legend on the trade-dollar, “ In God we trust,” is on 
the obverseside, while it is true that the “United States of America ” 
and the eagle are ominously arrayed on the reverse or opposite side. 

Unfortunately all the trade-dollars have not left our country for our 
country’s good; they were made here by our machinery, and all that 
are in the hands of innocent holders should be offered a little chance 
to get out of the way, if they will only depart quickly. 

EXCESS OF SILVER. 

There are in circulation at the present time $93,953,780 of our silver 
coinage. There are also $141,337,533 more in the Treasury which the 
Government would be only too glad to unload. Half as much of frac¬ 
tional silver and about three times as many silver dollars are now in 
the Treasury as are held by the people. Where is it to go ? Oui bonof 
The Treasury is thoroughly gorged, and the stomachs of the people are 
suffering from hopeless imligestion. 

It can hardl}^ be doubted that the two or more millions of silver bullion 
which has been bought every month, and by the overtasked mints con¬ 
verted into more millions of dollars, amounting in five years and seven 
months to the prodigious sum of $154,370,899, would have been more 
largely accepted and held as ready money by the people if the Govern¬ 
ment had left silver to stand on its own merits, and had not enlisted in 
what seemed almost a crusade to force au excessive and unnatural 
amount into circulation. Sober legislators appeared to rely upon coer¬ 
cion to popularize the diffusion of silver, and also upon the ponderous 
creation of an absolute supply to create an equally absolute demand ; 
but the public, wandering in unbelief, declined to be coerced, and sub¬ 
sequent experience, to a considerable extent, may have confirmed the 
general and more pronounced lack of faith. It is true that the Govern¬ 
ment has been and is regularly in the market for its moon-struck sup¬ 
ply of bullion, yet any advantage of an increased or fictitious creation of 
value upon the general product of silver mines has been and is impos¬ 
sible, because all the rest of mankind, or the ma-jor part of consumei's, 
are entirely free to buy or not to buy, and especially free to take notice 
of the fact that our Government is a purchaser on sheer compulsion, 
bound by positive law, to buy and to hoard a swelling surplus that must 
ere long break through all barriers and inundate all markets. Beclouded 
by such surroundings, it is not wonderful that the price of silver has 


9 


been rather adversely affected. The London quotation for silver, Feb¬ 
ruary 28, 1878, was 55 pence per ounce, and has rarely if ever been so 
much since, being to-day 50} pence per ounce, British standard.* Bind¬ 
ing itself as a perpetual purchaser has placed the Government too nearly 
in the attitude of the reckless speculators of the stock exchange, or of buy¬ 
ing silver to make a “corner” in order to squeeze some outsider. But 
the action of the Government is as bootless as was the stamp of tlie ty¬ 
rant’s foot to raise armies. We have nothing to show for it except our 
own perspiration. The patronage of Government, bestowed upon silver 
mines, or nickel mines, or copper mines, to secure their permanent pros¬ 
perity, is unreliable, and no more should be sought after by them than 
can be j ustilied by the actual re(}uirements of the Government. It should 
also be forever borne in mind that the annual production of our gold 
mines, heretofore much the largest, is now a little less than our silver 
mines, and no more favoritism should be shown to one than to the other. 

When our standard money is of universal value, circulating without 
loss elsewhere as well as at home, the increase or decrease of its volume 
does not materially affect the price of commodities. The intercommu¬ 
nication of the markets of the world preserves values at nearly a uni¬ 
versal level, and redresses fluctuations at the bare cost of the transporta¬ 
tion of coin. 

It would obviously be to our great hurt if our specie should lack 
harmony with the standard of other commercial nations with whom 
our chief intercourse must be maintained. Different standards of 
money are worse and more inconvenient than different languages. 
Whatever disadvantages may now or hereafter arise from adverse ex¬ 
changes must be borne exclusivel}'' by those who adhere to the inferior 
stiindard. If we make one dollar in gold, or one dollar in silver, of the 
same intrinsic value each bears in Ijondon, Frankfort, and Paris, we 
may coin lew or many without appreciable effect upon prices or values. 
Great Britain is supposed to have large control of the gold standard of 
Europe; but, if so, it is not derived from her abundant coinage, no 
gold having been coined there in 1882, and only £209,880 of silver. 
Others may soon find that their interests can only be permanently pro¬ 
moted, not by a scramble with all tlie world for gold, but by uniting 
with us in giving to both silver and gold at least a fair trial to hold 
universal and harmonious relations. Meantime, whatever others may 
do, the vital interests of our own people can not be effectually guarded 
by a left-handed imposition of the silver standard. 

CANADIAN SILVER. 

When our fractional silver strays into Canada it is hailed as an in¬ 
truder, and cannot pass at less than 20 per cent, discount, or our half- 
dollar shrinks to 40 cents, and the quarter to 20 cents; but Canadian 
silver coins are plentiful on our northern borders, and, though really 
of less value than our fractional silver coins, they are generally ac¬ 
cepted at their full nominal value. Canadian silver should be sternly 
refused in all American markets, or subjected to a discount of 23.2 per 
cent., its bullion value. This would be reciprocity, and exclude a 
nuisance. 

CHARACTER OP OUR COINAGE. 

Although the abrasion of large coins, when in connection with the 
free use of paper currency, is not supposed to exceed 1 per cent, in fifty 

* According to United States standard, this shows a declension in value from 
108.509 cents per ounce to 99,631 cents, or about 81 per cent. 



10 


yeara, it is considerably more upon small coins. It is therefore of 
some importance that the surface of coins should not be too greatly ex¬ 
posed. Upon the larger coins, having possibly the central portions 
slightly concave, the figures in bas-relief, further protected by a grad¬ 
ually raised outer border, may be well rounded with little danger. 
This would give depth for greater boldness in the figures, so much ad¬ 
mired on ancient Greek coins, and would also make it impracticable to 
split coins and substitute baser metals for the inner part extracted, as 
has too often been practiced. 

COPPER CENTS. 

Our cojjper coins as well as those of other countries, in numbers ex¬ 
ceeding all other coins, have been subjected to many fantastic changes. 
Rude everywhere, as they originally appeared, the most extensive fab¬ 
rication has added little grace to relieve them from being eyerywhere 
‘ ‘ common and unclean. ’ ’ The copper coins issued in England by Charles 
II possessed intrinsic value equal to their nominal value. Charles XII 
of Sweden, however, made copper coins of less weight than that of our 
earliest copper cent, and then paid them to his army as the value of a 
silver dollar. It is some gratification to find our treatment of copper a 
little less heroic than that of the Swede. 

The earliest American copper coins made by any State were made at 
Rupert, in Vermont, and before Vermont had been admitted into the 
Union. A mint was there established for eight or ten years, having a 
capacity to stamp 60 coppers per minute, upon which the so-called ‘ ‘ baby- 
head ” Goddess of Liberty appeared;’ but truth compels me to say that 
this goddess was no more comely than that on the coins of the present 
day, although she was a hundred years younger. The owner of the 
mint, Reuben Harmon, was bound to pay the State 2.} per cent, for his 
privilege. At first these coins passed two for a pemiy, then four, and 
then eight, when they no longer paid for the cost, mainly on account 
of the sudden competition of other States, and of the large importations 
of Birmingham hardware, commonly called ‘ ‘ Bungtown coppers. ’ ’ 
We had no protective tariff then, and we have none now, against ‘ ‘ Bung- 
towns, ’ ’ whether of copper or silver. 

In 1787, by authority of Congress, a contract was made with James 
Jarvis for three hundred tons of copper coin, of the Federal standard, 
and cents were coined at the New Haven mint of the following descrip- 
\ tion: On one side thirteen circles linked together, a small circle in the 
middle, with the words “We are one;” on the other side a sun-dial, 
and below the dial the words ‘ ‘ Mind your business. ’ ’ 

In 1792 Congress authorized the coinage of a copper cent weighing 
264 grains, which was reduced in 1793 to 208 grains, again reduced in 
1796 to 168 grains, later to 140 grains, on which the so-called “booby- 
head ’ ’ appears—and in 1857 to 72 grains, of which 88 per cent, was 
to be copper and 12 per cent, nickel. In 1864 it was once more reduced 
to 48 grains, 95 per cent, of copper and 5 per cent, of tin or zinc. Finally, 
in 1872 the last change was made to three-fourths of copper and one- 
fourth nickel, but the weight remains at 48 grains. 

The fre(j[ueut and wide alterations which have been made in our 
copper coins show that intrinsic value has almost vanished, and they 
bear no proportional value to other coins; but, at the start, when cop¬ 
per bore a much higher price, the weight of the cent was fixed at five 
and a half times what it is now. In the southern portion of our coun¬ 
try, and especially on the Pacific coast, copper coins have been as un- 


11 


current as the yellow-colored Chinaman, or for a long time they were 
practically tabooed, and even now they are unwelcome travelers, much 
in need of a passport. Wherever not altogether snubbed the copper 
cent must pass, as Wood’s notable copper coins must have passed in 
America or Ireland, far above any real value, and with little other 
merit beyond that of the dusky color now supplied on its face to our re¬ 
cent Indian image of ‘ ‘ Liberty. ’ ’ After common use these coins assume 
a deeper Ethiopic complexion and become petty nuisances, scents as 
well as cents, redolent of many coppery smells which are easily trans¬ 
mitted to other coins, or to anything with which they hold pocket in¬ 
tercourse. Copper as a metal is wondrously useful, daily becoming 
more so, but neither Lycurgus nor Hamilton would at this day think 
of stamping it as money. Certainly we can do better. If the cent and 
two-cent coins were now made wholly of nickel the Government would 
obtain an ample seigniorage; and nickel, when compared with swarthy 
copper, is immaculate, or clean and bright. The importance of the 
cent coinage will be realized when we tind that over forty million 
pieces were coined the past year. 

The Chinese and Japanese bronze coins are of very light weight, of 
annular form, with a square hole in the center, and some of them are 
quite equal to other exhibitions of Oriental art which are now received 
with public favor. The specimen of an unauthorized cent made by our 
Mint in 1850, with a round hole in the center, suggests what might be 
done, if not with a nickel cent, perhaps with a hall-tlinieof silver. The 
present nickel hall-dimes are so nearly of the same diameter and thick¬ 
ness of a quarter-dollar that they are often not readily distinguished; 
but with a perforation, square or round, in the center, all confusion 
would be remedied, as well by touch as by sight. The three-cent nickel 
coin, no longer being the amount of letter postage-stamps, is no longer 
wanted, and might well give place to a two-cent nickel. 

GOLD COINS. 

The expediency of the original issue of the one-dollar and three-dollar 
gold coins has not been confirmed by experience. It will be observed, 
however, that our gold coins are all of equal fineness, and, in proportion 
to nominal value, of equal weight. At home or abroad, as to actual and 
relative value, they are not exposed to much criticism; but their beauty 
as works of art is not excessive, the figures being thin and barren of re¬ 
lief, especially the eagle on the twenty-dollar gold coin, which best rep¬ 
resents an unstuffed and unmounted flattened skin of some wild bird of 
prey, long packed away by Professor Baird in the vaults of the National 
Museum. 

SILVER COINS. 

But our silver coins, and all the minor coinage, including tokens, are 
bewilderingly destitute of symmetry or any other visible merit, bear¬ 
ing no proportion of intrinsic value to each other, in harmony partly 
with the troy and partly with the metric system of weights, some of 
them defying the laws of their birth, others easily colored with a gilded 
lie by the cheapest counterfeiter, none of them hartng a ‘ ‘ coigne of 
vantage” as to proportion, design, or beauty of workmanship; and the 
wider they circulate the wider discredit do they stamp upon the Gov¬ 
ernment. Coins equal in purity and weight to those of the Govern¬ 
ment now yield a tempting profit to enterprising counterfeiters. Surely 
Congress is not blameless when authorizing such an incoherent and 


12 


tiuttering output of coins; and the invisible genius presiding over the 
Mint from year to year would seem to have been just equal to the law 
and its profits, or just equal to the indexible and awkward jobs he had 
in hand. If our coins were asked who made them, each one might an¬ 
swer in the dialect of Topsy, ‘ ‘ I spect I growed. ’ ’ I would not unj ustly 
nor ill-naturedly criticise our coinage, but, while itself representing the 
standard of truth, it should be tried by that standard, however severe 
the ordeal may be. Able to command the best and highest resources 
of art, the United States should not be content with the poorest. We 
have been furnishing silver coinage, durable as it ought to be for half 
a century, as though it were a garment annually to be worn out and 
to be replaced on every first day of April; l)ut we have given little at¬ 
tention to the material, less to the fit or its fashion, and Brother Jon¬ 
athan’s style never fails to be recognized and laughed at. The annual 
reproduction here of these prolific examples of the general state of the 
arts seems unworthy of our country. The Mint does its mechanical 
work with wonderful accuracy, but neither power nor means to do any¬ 
thing more has ever been granted or supplied. Some of the engravers 
on wood for our magazines command better pay than the engravers, 
the “men of all work ” employed at the Mint in Philadelphia, and 
yet some of the medals executed there are iairly creditable. 

ANX’IENT COINAGE. 

Without making any pretentious display of erudition on the subject 
of coinage, as my study of the subject has not been so extended as to 
encourage any vanity of that sort, I will yet venture to call the atten¬ 
tion of Senators, very briefly, to the character of the coinage of earlier 
times, more especially to some examples of our English ancestors, with 
the history of which, whether good or bad, all will be more or less fa¬ 
miliar; and finally to the absence of artistic perfection exhibited in the 
unattractive character ot our own coinage, of which any one can sum¬ 
mon from his pocket a cloud of witnesses. 

What are now often called Roman or Ureek medals Avere really 
coins put into circulation by the Greek and Roman governments in 
past ages, and appear, as the invention of a polished people—to have 
been not merely for service as coins, but were often works of art, or 
miniature copies of such works, illustrating not only ancient manners 
and much of ancient poetry, but they have also served to fix the date of 
many otherwise debakible facts of history. Many of them were de¬ 
signed to mark victories, like the medals of Napoleon, or notable events, 
and to perpetuate the fameol rulers, whose faces and actions were thus 
portrayed in a manner that insured circulation throughout empires and 
throughout future ages. The consent of the Roman Senate was first ob¬ 
tained by Cajsar to place his portrait on Roman coins, and his example 
appears to have been diligently followed by his successors. Previously, 
only the heads of their deities, or of those who had received divine 
honors, were placed on their coins; butsubsequently the laureated heads 
with great prodigality celebrated their own virtues. 

These ancient coins are highly prized, not for the metal they contain— 
iis one of brass or copper^ frequently commands a much higher price 
than its weight in gold—but they are eagerly sought after by collectors 
to be placed in cabinets, being valuable for the illustration of the epoch, 
or sometimes as specimens of rare beauty of workmanship; and what 
was worth the merest pittance when issued by Augustus, or by Antony 


* Our Washington cent of 1791 now brings over S50. 






13 


and Cleopatra, now often commands a fabulous sum. So highly es¬ 
teemed are some of these specimens, that bogus imitations have been 
cunningly made, and, alter being buried in the earth long enough to 
apparently acquire the rust and smell of antiquity, they come forth to 
deceive the very elect, or at least to deceive the collectorsof those very rare 
coins once restored to the sacks of Joseph’s brethren, or of those ducats 
of old Duke Dandolo, said to have been loaned by Shylock to Antonio. 

ENGLISH COINS. 

Coming down to later times we find that in the reign of Queen Eliz¬ 
abeth, when silver money had been much debased, and had also been 
shamefully clipped, she caused it all to be called in and stamped accord¬ 
ing to its purity and actual weight. This greatly improved commercial 
exchanges, promoted trade with other nations, and made, in the latter 
half of the sixteenth century, the long-headed and red-haired queen very 
popular. Strange to say, however, while rescuing England from base 
coin, she still issued it without stint for Ireland. Under the iron rule 
of Cromwell distinguished French artists were employed upon the coin¬ 
age of the Commonwealth, and it was ordered with much spirit that 
“in beauty of mechanical execution the coins of this nation should not be 
behind any nation.” This order was strictly enforced, and England to 
this day has been unable to show any coins more beautifully designed 
and engraved than those of the Lord Protector in 1658. Notwithstand¬ 
ing his head was removed from Westminster Abbey, then stuck upon 
a pole and carried through the streets of London, yet his splendid head 
by Simon, on silver crowns, has perhaps among British coins had a yet 
more unrivaled elevation. The guinea, issued under Charles II, was 
so named because made of gold from Guinea, and bore the effigy of an 
elephant, from the vain idea that its circulation in England might en¬ 
courage the importation of more gold from Africa. 

So eminent a man as Sir Isaac Newton was made Master of the Mint 
in the reign of George I, as he had been in that of William III, when 
clipped coins were once more called in and exchanged for new coins of 
full value. In the reign of George I, with Walpole as mini.ster, the 
famous royal patent w’as granted to William Wood for “coining small 
money for Ireland and the English Plantations;” and he coined a mul¬ 
titude of spurious shillings from copper or brass, as well as baser “small 
money for Ireland. ” “ Wood’s money ’ ’ was, however, fiercely assailed 

by the irrepressible Dean Swift, and the fiat of the government was 
scornfully trampled upon by the Irish people. 

The coinage under George III, fitly rei)resented by his stolid face, 
was hardly less wretched than many other monumental facts of his 
long and wretched reign. The St. George and the dragon that appeared 
in 1817 on the coins of England, and notably on the gold sovereign, 
which superseded the guinea, was the spirited and very creditable work 
of Pistrueci, a foreign artist employed by the Prince Regent. The head 
of George IV, on the coins of his reign, was designed by Chantrey, the 
sculptor, and is very fine as a portrait, though said to be amazingly 
flattered. 

Fifty-five million dollars of gold coins, so lateas 1842, were withdrawn 
by England, and new coins of full weight given at the expense of the 
government. 

FRENCH COINAGE. 

The Parisian school of coinage, founded by David, the celebrated 
painter, aimed at first at something better than what maybe called the 


4 


14 


grandiose style, and copied nature, or more of the simplicity and ele¬ 
gance of the Greek medals. 

Among the large number of French medals given July 4, 1822, to our 
Congressional Library by George W. Erving, and accej)ted by Congress 
(but unfortunately destroyed subsequently by the fire in the Library), 
there were many executed with remarkable skill, and nearly all com¬ 
memorated some event in the history of Napoleon. Fresh copies of 
these, at small expense, it is supposed, might easily be obtained. In 
the beauty of workmanship and aptness of,device French coins, for 
many years, were held to be superior to those of any other country, 
especially in the rounded and bolder relief of the figures. But some 
decadence began under Louis XVIII, and less credit would be due to 
the flood of coins bearing the dull image of Napoleon III, who had his 
portrait pompously decorated with the ancient laurel crown, that he 
might pass, if not as a Eoman Csesar, at least as a legitimate Napoleon. 

UNITED STATES COINAGE. 

From time to time many governments have made earnest efforts to 
improve the style and mechanical execution of their coinage, not al¬ 
ways with marked success, but generally with some advance upon the 
past. The difficulty of hammering flat circular coins having been over¬ 
come, by the machinery of the mill and screw in 1561, the square, ob¬ 
long, actagon, and other ruder, irregular pieces were at once suiierseded. 
Men of science, or of eminence, were employed to advise or direct the 
work of mints, such as Locke, and Newton, and Herschel in England, 
and in our own country Rittenhouse, Boudinot, the Pattersons, and 
Snowden. The service was held to be both honorable and nationally 
important, and here early attracted the attention of such men as Jef¬ 
ferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and John Quincy Adams. In one of 
Franklin’s letters he laments that the eagle should have been selected 
as the emblem of the United States, and writes : “For my part, I wish 
the bald eagle had not been chosen as the representative of our coun¬ 
try. He is a bird of bad moral character ; he does not get his living 
honestly. ’ ’ Franklin might have added that the eagle was already 
more appropriately claimed on the imperial standards of Russia, Aus¬ 
tria, Prussia, and France. 

For the reverse sides of our coins there were differences of opinion in 
Congress and long and grave debate, as the Senate wanted the portrait of 
Washington, and the House insisted, with success, upon a “figureem¬ 
blematic of Liberty,” although Representative Livermore, of New 
Hampshire, is reported to have said that “the President was a very 
good emlilem of Liberty; but, what an emblematic figure might be, he 
could not tell. A ghost had been said to be in the shape of the sound 
of a drum, and so might Liberty for aught he knew.” 

Congress has by law prescrilied witliin narrow bounds the devices and 
legends to be stamped upon our coins. Upon the obverse side there is 
to be an imprevssion of Liberty, bearing the inscription of the word 
“ Liberty, ’ ’ and the year of the coinage, and upon the reverse side there 
is to be the figure or representation of an eagle, with the inscription, 
“United States of America,” and “E pluribus unum,” and a designa¬ 
tion of the value of the coin; but on the one and three dollar gold 
pieces, and on the dime, five, three, and one cent pieces, the figure of the 
eagle is to be omitted. Upon the reverse of the trade-dollar the weight 
and fineness were to be inscribed. 


15 


KMBLEM OF LIBERTY. 

The emblem of Liberty, like that of many other virtues, has been 
said to be always represented in petticoats. The Britannia of Great 
Britain appears in form like a near relation to the Liberty, or the 
Minerva often found on old Greek and Roman coins, and in the days of 
Charles II the Duchess of Richmond served as a model to the engraver; 
but, more recently, Victoria, by the distinguished medalist, Wyon, has 
been stamped with great excellence upon British coins, and she, like 
Queen Anne, seems to have occasionally insisted upon decent drapery 
about the bust. 

Our sitting emblem of Liberty on fractional silver looks very like a 
descendant of our grandmother Britannia, by Clark Mills. Whether 
she wears long hair or a jaunty widow’s cap may not be quite clear, 
and there is no end of crinoline, while the obtruding whalebones, in 
has-relief^ compressing the waist, painfully disclose overworn corsets. 
But, as our highest effort, and best, on the copper cent and on the one- 
dollar and three-dollar gold coins, the head of our emblem appears in 
the baubles of an Indian princess, doubtless an ideal Pocahontas— 
“ that female bully of the town”—with the head accordingly stuck 
around with feathers, and labeled on the tiara “ Liberty.” Its circu¬ 
lation in the Indian Territory, I regret to say, has not been commen¬ 
surate to the witchery of the bait. England strangely omits to stamp 
on her figure of the lion “ this is a lion ; ” but our emblem, safe from 
all misconception, is always plainly and voraciously branded across the 
forehead, ‘ ‘ Liberty. ’ ’ 

I am a stalwart supporter of the consecrated emblem, but would in¬ 
voke the genius even of flattery to present the American ‘ ‘ Inberty ’ ’ 
without the feathers of a drum-major, and certainly something better 
than a Grecian face in the regalia of a squaw', or than a feeble copy of 
our ancient grandmother. 

AMERICAN EAGLES. 

We have on our various coins a grim crowd of so-called eagles, chiefly 
representing a belated evolution from the buzzard family. The dif¬ 
ferent artists—technically perhajis of the same family origin—would 
seem to have spent their whole wit upon their several masterpieces. 
It is to be hoped, however, that their models, like the griffin and the 
dodo, are all extinct. Whether their outstretched wings point upward 
or downward it is a great comfort to see that the birds are all truly 
American, as each one loyally shows himself, always and every where, a 
spread eagle. Whoever looks at them may well croak, and utter Poe’s 
doleful raven slang of “N-e-v-e-r m-o-r-e,” though they are not ravens, 
as none ever fed little children; but each one, in full-blown dignity, is, 
as John Neal has said, “a fierce gray bird with bending beak,” and 
not without terrors in a claw. The artists, it must be allowed, are 
great in profile views of “bending beaks,” with feathery appendages; 
but it can not be a serious error to suppose their inspiration to have 
been largely derived from an obedient study of that familiar and rather 
pungent text which reads, “ For wheresoever the carcass is, there will 
the eagles be gathered together.” It will be observed, too, that all of 
their beaks are wide open, equally ready to dine or to scream. 

If the truth must be confessed, our figures of the eagle are not much 
above caricatures, and exhibit so little of truth and grace of form that 
our bakers would refuse to reproduce them in their cakes sold at a dime 
for a dozen. What should be feathers are hardly to be distinguished 




16 


trom the imbricated backs of that rare bird known as the turtle. The 
imputed vanity of our bird surely never got its start from any flattery 
on our coins, though he seems to be stiff there with the purpose of in¬ 
viting all the double-headed spread-eagles of Europe either to a fight 
or a carousal, not caring a ‘ ‘ continental ’ ’ which. 

Strangely enough the trade-dollar has a left-handed figure of Liberty 
sitting on a bale of cotton, but the eagle is certainly not the worst we 
have, though a monstrosity wonderfully and fearfully made. That on 
the twenty-dollar gold piece, nearly destitute of relief, and in all senses 
flat, is very uncouthly drawn, with the wings turned wrong side up, 
like an inverted umbrella in a gust of wind, and tricked out with the 
trumpery of endless and meaningless scroll decorations. But unhap¬ 
pily on our latest dollar will be found the blandest and possibly, where 
all are ugly, our most abominable eagle, unless we except the one on 
the wing which ojice appeared as a scarecrow on the silver dollar, af¬ 
terward belittled as the eagle volant on the copper cent, and was then 
esteemed the nearest of kin to the vulture, as some plain matter-of-fact 
people will call the stray figure which seems determined to roost upon 
the head of Liberty at the top of the Capitol. I would not take a 
feather from our— 

Majestic monarch of the clouds, 

but would have him appear, if I could, more in the truthful dignity 
and beauty of nature, and then dismiss the whole brood of invented 
eagles. 

THE MINT FETTERED BY E.^W. 

The Director of the Mint, the coiner and engraver, do not appear to 
have any discretion in regard to existing coins, which must be made 
from “the original dies already authorized,” and “conformable in all 
respects to the law,” and mainly the law of eighty years’ standing. 
It is, even under the law of 1873, only when new coins or de\dces are 
authorized that the Director of the Mint has power to seek any im¬ 
provements through the services of competent artists. This law was 
in the right direction, but wholly inoperative, as it has no application 
except ‘ ‘ when new coins or deduces are authorized. ” No new coins being 
authorized, no changes can be made in the old matrices and dies; and 
the engraver, however expert and skillful, has no possible opportunity to 
show any rare skill or advancement in the perfection of his work. Nor 
can his ambition lie greatly stimulated by his rather limited compen¬ 
sation. Quantity, not (juality, would seem to have been best appre¬ 
ciated; and while we have eclipsed the world in quantity, we have 
suffered an eclipse in quality. 

REFORM DESIRABEE. 

Is it not time that we should put forth some efibrt to improve the 
general character and appearance of our coinage? What may have 
been acceptable, and even creditable to our people in 1792, or in 1837, 
is no more applk-able to our condition now than would be the garments 
of a boy to the man after a lapse of half a century. We do not now 
depend upon foreign skill or upon foreign metals for our coinage; and 
a great nation can not afford to have any work which is exclusively 
under its control pass as second rate. We are prone to suggest doubts 
as to whether the people of this or that nation are competent to sus¬ 
tain a republican form of government. With the several examples of 
state-craft shown in attempts to regulate our coinage which have too 
often decorated United States statutes, can we blame those %ve have 


17 


criticised if they occasionally remind us that our Government has not 
yet passed beyond the region of experiment? But can we not have 
United States coins with more of positive value, allied and related to 
each other, and stamped with such simplicity of design and beauty of 
finish as to give them rank as models worthy to endure for many gen¬ 
erations? 

First, our coins should, from their size and character, he easily dis¬ 
tinguishable, whether by sight or touch, one from another; and there 
should be no silver or nickel coins which, by being gilded, would simu¬ 
late and pass for gold. At present our silver dime is apparently of the 
same size of the three-cent piece and of the gold quarter-eagle, and the 
first and last have the same ancient Britannia doing her best as the latest 
edition of American Liberty. The latest copper cent is very like the 
three-dollar gold piece, with a similar picture of the head of an Indian 
Venus de Modoc as the emblem of Liberty. Some of the nickel five- 
cent pieces, costing less than half a cent, are so nearly of the same size 
and weight of the gold half-eagle that they have already been gilded 
and circulated for one thousand times their real value. We have now 
in circulation five-cent pieces, as well as three-cent pieces, diverse in 
metal, form, inscription, and in value; and those made of the dearest 
metal are executed in the cheapest and most commonplace manner. On 
one of the five-cent pieces the design has been said to suggest its origin 
Tn old pictures of a tombstone overhung by weeping willows. The 
clumsy execution and ill-assorted relations of these coins will be recog¬ 
nized at sight by everybody except their godfathers. 

TOO MUCH ALLOY. 

There is so much alloy in our silver coins that they do not remain 
bright and attractive. When handled as change, they become, after the 
briefest contact with their fellow-associates, as dingy as the dullest 
lead and tempt no one to break any commandment, for they are never 
coveted. Solid silverware, when no finer than United States coin, re¬ 
tains so little of permanent brilliancy that it has been almost dethroned 
by plated ware—not altogether because burglars refuse the cheaper 
substitute, but because the substitute displays the beauty of silver 
more nearly in its absolute purity; and its luster, though only skin deep, 
does not vanish like that of the night-blooming cereus in a single night. 
Our silver coins should not be inferior in purity to the sterling standard 
of Great Britain; but it must be admitted that our current small coins 
are suggestive of no nobler use than that found in paying a reckoning 
at a corner grocery. They ought to contain enough of the precious 
metals to preserve them from the owner’s contempt, and to insure some 
hospitality wherever they lodge. They ought, also, to be so good as to 
banish the circulation here of Canadian silver, whichi, though uninvited, 
comes in large force demanding American privileges. 

The actual weight of pure* silver in our fractional coins is as much 
too small as that of the alloy is too great; and as works of art they 
have little merit, or fiir less than the works daily exhibited by our artif¬ 
icers in metals less precious. Believing that some reform would be a 
great and lasting public benefit, I am induced to urge a higher real 
value in fractional silver coins, or a restoration to the proportions of the 
silver dollar which they always held until degraded, in order to find a 
French market which they failed to reach, by the act of 1853; and also 
to urge that the purity of the metal, now nine-tenths fine, shall be not 

MO-2 


18 


less than that of the sterling silver of Great Britain, or nine hundred 
and twenty-five one-thousandths fine. The copper cent, it is to be hoped, 
may he abandoned, and gradually superseded by another, less poisonous, 
composed chiefiy of nickel, and far above two mills in value. Our token 
coinage not being redeemable, we cannot afford to send it forth glaringly 
deficient in intrinsic value. 

CONCLUSION. 

Beyond all these points, let me urge that our coins, in aptness of de¬ 
sign and perfection of artistic execution, sliall not be inferior, as they 
confessedly are, to any foreign examples, and certainly not inferior to 
the ordinary work of the best silversmiths or goldsmiths. As St. Paul 
said to the Philippians: “Whatsoever tilings are true, whatsoever 
things are honest, whatsoever things are j ust, whatsover things are 
pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good re¬ 
port; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these 
things. ’ ’ 

The questions, as I have intended to present them, are practical and 
political but not partisan, except among twinkling demagogues who 
may shine for the moment like Jack-a-1 an terns in a dark swamp and 
are snuffed out by the first rays of morning light. Let us have Amer¬ 
ican coins so good that the people will be willing to work for them, and 
gladly carry them at their own expense, without asking free transporta¬ 
tion from the Government. 

The Greeks and Komans left no monuments illustrating their career 
more permanent than their coins. We have ceremoniously deposited in 
the corner-stones of many large edifices specimens of the United States 
coins. Should these ever become visible to a distant posterity, will 
they be likely to reflect much honor upon those who have thus chal¬ 
lenged future consideration? The rapid extinction going on of our 
public debt, and the wonderful growth of the country in population 
and wealth, indicate that our great seaport on the Atlantic, and possi¬ 
bly another on the Pacific, may ere long prove to bean aggressive com¬ 
petitor for the controlling monetary power of the world. Producing 
all the silver and gold that we require for domestic use, with a large 
surplus to supply the demands of others less fortunate, may we not 
declare iu Cromwellian phraseology, “that in the beauty of mechanical 
execution the coins of this nation should not be behind any nation ? ’ ’ 
And, therefore, let me urge that here and now is a proper time and 
opportunity for some action creditable to the Government, worthy of 
Congress, and such as will have the lasting approval of the people. 

Mr. President, I ask that the bill lie on the table until the Committee 
on Finance shall have been apjiointed. 


O 


COi^GRESSIONAL LIBRAKY BUILDING. 



REMARKS 

OF 

HON. JDSTIN S. MORRILL, 

OF 

IN THK 

SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 

T’bhruary 7 , 1884 , 

ON 

S. 1139, authorizing the construction of a building for the accommodation 
of the Congressional Library. 


WASH IN GTON. 

1884 . 




* 


li E M A K K S 


OF 

HON. JUSTIN S. MOKRILL. 


The Senate having under consideration the bill (S. 1139) authorizing the con¬ 
struction of a building for the accommodation of the Congressional Tdbrary— 

Mr. MORRILL said: 

^Ir, President: If I appear once more as the advocate of a new li¬ 
brary of Congress it is hectiuse the extreme want of it is getting to be 
unendurable, and because the bill before us, so far as the committee can 
judge, if not all that some would like, is all that our circumstances 
plainly require and all that is likely to obtain the favor of Congress. 
Having for many years urged attention to this subject, I confess that it 
would give me some pleasure to see the library so greatly and immedi¬ 
ately needed acceptably completed during what may remain to me of life, 
and completed while our present excellent Librarian, in his ambition 
ai]d administrative vigor, is at his best. The bill has the approval of the 
special committee and will not involve a larger expenditure than is 
rigidly required for an approiiriate building nor more than will har¬ 
monize with the views of the most careful and prudent legislators. 

In the present Library of Congress there is shelf-room for 280,000 
volumes, and we had January 1,1884, on hand, 513,441 volumes of 
books and 165,000 pamphlets, for which room is required. This plain 
statement of the facts shows that only one-half of the present stock of 
books and pamphlets can now be properly cared for, while the other half 
is lying around in promiscuous and dusty piles, unavailable for use and 
obstructive even to the use of such books as have the cleaner privilege 
of scanty shelf-room. 

Last year we had large and valuable personal donations of books to 
the Library, which had to be stored in the crypt of the Capitol, where 
they are about as accessible as they would be in the Roman catacom bs. 



4 


Sucli a subterranean disposition of generous donations, were it to be 
but temporary, is not calculated to win many more exhibitions of simi¬ 
lar liberality. If we may not anticipate for every year the full growth 
of 1882, which amounted to over .59,000 volumes, or nearly three times 
as many as in 1852 were to be found in the whole Library, yet the in¬ 
crease of the Library of^Congress will forever be on a grand scale, and, 
like the annual growth of our country, will be greater and greater in 
ever}^ succeeding year. The prolific sources of this increase are known 
to all and need not be stated. 

Beyond books and pamphlets, room has to be provided yearly for the 
copyright articles received, and these in 1882 amounted to 26,683. 

There are no reading-rooms; no rooms for the display of manuscripts, 
of maps, of the graphic arts; none for even the official administration 
of the Library, and none for a bindery. 

The distressing condition of the Library at the present time, with all 
of its proper and needful vacant spaces—floors, corridors, alcoves, and 
galleries—filled with the most inflammable substances, can not be re¬ 
garded as free from grave and constant peril by fire. One careless spark 
would suddenly show how great a matter a little fire kindleth. The 
Library may be and is what is called fire-proof, but where there is com¬ 
bustible material in large abundance piled up all around, sufficient at 
any moment for a quick, hot, and smoking fire no possible building can 
give absolute .security for its contents. The Library is now exposed to 
this extraordinary and daily-increasing risk, and there is not .ui in¬ 
surance office in this city that would accept such a risk on any terms 
less than extra-hazardous. 

That new accommodations for the Library of Congress are inexorably 
demanded is a point no longer open to argument, and a new library 
can no more be decently shunned by Congress than a new barn can 'l)e 
shunned by the farmer when the old one is found insufficient for even 
one-half of his stock. ’ 

This Library, while primarily for the use of Congress, is always, as the 
property of the nation, open to all the people without any ticket of 
admission, and derives its supj^ort, directly or indirectly, from the na¬ 
tion. It is, perhaps, the largest storehouse of human knowledge and 
of valuable materials for the use of scholars to be found in the United 


States. We guarantee Ijy copyright to authors in *he whole field of 
American letters their exclusive proi^erty, including literary, musical, 
and artistic productions. Of all these we receive in trust printed copies, 
and also receive ample fees to compensate the Government for their per¬ 
petual preservation. We are paid in advance for keeping the most per¬ 
fect and complete record of the intellectual progress of our people as 
traced in “the art preservative of all arts, ” and its custody is intrusted 
to our honor and our enlightened sense of propriety. Our duty is ob¬ 
vious, and its neglect can not escape reproach. 

I know that the ghosts of some ideas, which have suggested the pos¬ 
sible avoidance of a separate Library building by some crude extension 
of the Capitol, or by finding room where there is none for the enlarge¬ 
ment of the Library, still flutter around us, but when approached they 
will all vanish into ‘ ‘ such stuff as dreams are made of. ” Not one of them 
will stand the test of a critical examination. There is no scientific 
trick by which a quart can be put into a pint cup, nor can anything of 
real or permanent value be gained by a topsy-turvy rearrangement of 
the existing compartments of the Capitol. Even more objectionable 
would be monster extensions from the center or fVom the wings, de¬ 
structive alike of the beauty of the grounds and of the Capitol itself. 
All of these suggestions have had their (pTietus by an e.xamination and 
an adverse report made by an authorized commission of architects, 
and if resurrected they will appear in the grave-clothes in which they 
were buried. 

The present Capitol in its general outlines and fine proportions fitly 
represents the legislative Capitol of the Republic, and is not surpassed, 
perhaps not even equaled, in its classic simplicity and massive dignity 
by the legislative halls or parliamentary buildings of any other country. 
It is the best architectural work we have, an unmistakably legislative 
structure; and the Congress which should consent to its mutilation or 
to incongruous additions would earn an unenviable fame. The well- 
ripened judgment of the people will prove its sufficient protection 
against all such vagaries. 

Were it possible for the two Houses of Congress to surrender room to 
shelter the slightest expansion of the Library within the present Cap¬ 
itol, and it then should be found such an encroachment or annoyance 


as to reciuire a prompt removal, as it surely would, we might he told 
in the language of ^sop’s porcupine, “No; let them quit the place that 
don’t like it,” and thus Congress would find itself far on the way to¬ 
ward getting temporary accommodations, or a clumsy, inconvenient, 
insufficient, and very expensive library in exchange for the loss of a 
very fine Capitol. We c^m better defend the propriety of building a 
new library than of a new Capitol. Both the Senate and House of 
Representatives now really need much more room for many purposes, 
and when a new library shall be completed only the central part of the 
present Library will remain for a working library, and the two large 
wings will at once be utilized as Congress may then determine. 

An examination of tlie present bill will show that it is nearly the 
same as that perfected by the committee, and prasentcd by me F’ebru- 
ary 23, 1883, and provides for a ])uilding at much less cost than what 
had been originally proposed. In other words, the committee, while 
still seeking to have a creditable and scholarly building, propose a less 
expensive stjde of architecture and a less exi)ensive material than 
granite. 

The plan of the exterior of the building now presented is in the Italian 
renaissance style, stripped of elaborate decorations, instead of the (ler- 
man Gothic requiring pinnacles, flying-buttre.sses, and much perhaps 
for dainty show, and it will involve only about one-half the cost of the 
previous plan. The building will be characterized by great simplicity, 
and yet in the elegance of its proportions and ({uiet dignity it will not 
prove unworthy of our country, and the interior will be found to pos¬ 
sess all of the varied and substantial merits required for extensive and 
practiital use. 

The character and merits of the plan will lx* indicated by the fact 
that it is the same plan as to the exterior elevations to which was 
awarded the first premium in a contest under the law of Congress ten 
years ago with more than thirty di.stinguished competitors, but now 
with a different and greatlj’- improved interior arrangement under the 
advice of our Librarian, or a modification and atlaptation of the fore¬ 
most plans ever presented here, or elsewhere known. ' 

In dimensions it will be large and sufficient, 309 by 459 feet, and so 


i 

designed as to permit extensive future additions of shelf-room without 
any enlargement of the building for generations to come. For the gen¬ 
eral reader there will be a central octagonal room one hundred feet in 
diameter, and other rooms for separate study, for exhibitions of some 
of the arts, and for various other important pui'poses, including the 
copyright and other administrative offices of the Librarian. 

In the basement of the building, which will have two-thirds of its 
height above the level of the sidewalk, there will be rooms for a book- 
bindery. for bound newspapers, copyright work, packages, janitor, and 
for other special purposes. Even much smaller libraries have found a 
bindery not only economical, but nearly indispensable, and here it will 
be of great and special importance. There will also be an abundance of 
sunlight. The method of ventilation after much investigation will, it 
is believed, be of the most approved character, on what is known as the 
down-draft system, and such as will shield books on the topmost shelves 
from excessive heat and dust. This system has been adopted and tested 
elsewhere, and especially by the library of the Brown University at 
Providence, and that it has been entirely successful is showm by a letter 
to Mr. Smithmeyer from the librarian, dated December 21, 1883, in 
which he says: 

In regard to ventilation, what I wish to state is this: After a trial of five years 
I am satisfied that it is as near perfect as anything of that kind can be. (It is the 
system you advocate.) At any time during the day a match or paper (burning) 
applied to the surface of the ventilating shafts will be drawn downward. The 
temperature of the upper (third) story is precisely that of the lower. This I 
have verified by a thermometer time and again. Should be pleased to have you 
call and see for your.self. Facts are better than theories. 

This is the testimony of Reuben G. Guild, the librarian, and we could 
hardly ask for anything better upon this most important and hitherto 
very troublesome problem. 

It will undoubtedly be found practicable with a new' library to keep 
it open to public use many more hours of the wTek than heretofore, 
including evenings, and to this end appropriate means of heating and 
lighting will be supplied. 

The expense of the building, considering its dimensions and its high 
and permanent character, will not be excessive, and w’ill necessarily be 
spread over two or three years. After the exterior and central portions 
of the building are completed a considerable part of the cost may be 


8 


postponed, as no more of the iron shelving, which is an expensive feat¬ 
ure, will need to be supplied than may be required for immediate use; 
and some share of the inside finish can be postponed without hinderance 
to its early occupation. 

The estimate of the architect, for the building constructed with lime¬ 
stone or sandstone with three hundred alcoves, or sufficient for 800,000 
or 1,000,000 volumes, with the heating and ventilating ajjparatus, eleva¬ 
tors, and other fixtures, is $2,323,600. When fully completed there 
will be seven hundred additional alcoves which will cost $700,000 more; 
and the entire completion of the whole interior, including the basement, 
will require a further sum of $239,000. This is a carefully revised esti¬ 
mate, and shows that the building may be put into a condition of readi¬ 
ness to be occupied with very large accommodations, at an expense 
already mentioned, and when it shall be hereafter completely finished, 
with a capacity to hold over 3,000,000 books, with facilities for even 
largely increasing even this vast stock when absolutely necessary, in 
addition to all of its other extensive and important accommodations, 
its ultimate cost will be $3,262,600. 

This, the committee believe, is not extravagant, and, for a building 
that is to last for centuries, will be accepted as satisfactory. It will be 
far less than has been appropriated for public buildings in many other 
cities, and less than half the cost of the New York post-office; and yet 
in point of real dignity it ought to be superior to them all. 

The cost of the site proposed, under any circumstances not to exceed 
$550,000, will be, comparatively, exceedingly moderate—less than it 
would be in almost any other part of this or any other city; and that 
it will be much the best and most accessible will hardly be disputed. 
There is and can be no jobbery behind it. Nor can any party but the 
Government profit by its purchase. 

Let it be borne in mind that the avenues, streets, and alleys, which 
will be fiiken without cost, are more than equal in extent to all the 
space to be bought and paid for. Beyond this, the value of the ma¬ 
terials in the existing buildings and their foundations, which must be 
sold and removed, or used in the construction of the foundations and 
inner walls of the new library, will be enough to make a very sensible 
reduction from the gross cost of the site. Preparations for the foun- 


9 


dation on such high ground will be inexpensive, and the Library itself 
will forever be dry and healthly, unwholesome to none of its contents, 
whether of books or men. Economically considered, therefore, the site 
is not without solid and most important advantages. It will be worth 
all it will cost. 

Appropriations are not refused for court-houses, post-offices, and cus¬ 
tom-houses in near or remote States; and the cost of land alone, $1,491,- 
200 at Philadelphia, $708,036 at Cincinnati, $368,882 at Saint Louis, 
$553,500 at Baltimore, $1,329,095 at Boston, and other sums at two 
hundred other places, as well as the cost of buildings, has been here¬ 
tofore found practically necessary, and does not seem to have been be¬ 
grudged, though the expenditures may appear to have been often chiefly 
of local advantage, and only asked for by the constituents of a single 
Representative or Senator, but when more accommodations are re((uired 
here for the Library of Congress, an object wholly national, indispensa¬ 
ble to Congress, and overflowing with public benefits, we have been 
subjected to protracted delays and confronted by the doubts of some 
statesmen, ever pregnant with fault-finding, who are not sure that our 
surplus of unshelved books might not be more wisely disposed of by a 
bonfire, as the Dutch get rid of surplus spices; and, if land must be pur¬ 
chased, they feel certain that some uninhabited or yet undiscovered spot 
or place can be found at a cheaper price. 

The land which it is nbw proposed to acquire is in close proximity to 
the Capitol, and has been heretofore offered by most of the ownem, over 
their own signatures, on the most favorable terms and for far less than 
has been paid elsewhere. If any now should be unwilling to part with 
their property at a reasonable price, it will be fixed by the court or by 
appraisers appointed by the court. The fact that it has long seemed 
inevitable that these squares would at some time be taken for public 
use has had the effect of retarding their improvement and depressing 
their value. The people of the United States do not desire parsimony 
in public expenditures for worthy objects when they get the worth of 
their money, and here the expenditure is not only worthy, but it is in 
the right place and the value of the acquisition incontestable. If Sen¬ 
ators will look at it, or once travel around it, they will see that they 
ciin not be cheated in its purchase or condemnation. It is worth more 


10 


to the United Statas than to any other parties. If not taken now, as I 
believe it will be, it will surely be taken by our successors. 

When this subject was last considered here, so far as it could be set¬ 
tled by the Senate, the question a^s to the site of a new library was 
settled by a large and a very decisive vote, more than two to one, in 
favor of taking some of the squares east of the Capitol. There are very 
few members of the Senate to-day who voted against that location, and 
of these few it maj" be hoped not all will now be I'ound opposed to it. 

It is evident that, unless we are willing to destroy the most attractive 
features now surrounding the Capitol, no invasion by any annex, and 
no offshoot in its front or rear, at one end or the other, can be permitted 
in any direction or ui)on any part of the present grounds, which are 
yearly more and more unfolding their wonderful beauty. We must 
submit to the conditions which we cheerfully accept everywhere else, 
and when a site for pnl)lic use is absolutely re(]uired it must be taken 
and a just compensation paid. 

Singularly enough, while there is apparently’ an unending struggle 
here in the political capital of the country to retain the few acres which 
were originally reserved for squares and tor a small park. New York, the 
commercial capihil of the country, is applying to the State Legislature 
for power to purchase large tracts of land for several additional parks. 
The commission appointed to select lands for these new public parks 
have made a report to the Legislature, from which I take the follow¬ 
ing statement: 

Paris has 17’2,000 acres in parks, or one acre to every thirteen inhab¬ 
itants; in Vienna the proj)ortion is one acre to one hundred persons; in 
Chicago one to two hundred; iia Philadelphia one to three hundred; in 
Brooklyn one to six hundred and thirty-nine; in New York one to 1,;IG3, 
but New York ])roposes to buy 3,808 acres for additional parks, at an 
estimated cost of $2,000 per acre, or in the aggregate at the cost of 
$7,616,000. In the city ofWashington, outside of the grounds surround¬ 
ing the White House and the Capitol, and what used to be called the Mall, 
now strangled by the railroad, the public reservations are deplorably 
small. The public may be dazed by the multitude of minor triangu¬ 
lar reservations at the intersection of the avenues and streets. There 
are on the plan of the city about two hundred of these pleasing triviali- 


11 


ties, but hardly one of tliem iu extent would be more than e(iual to a 
site for a common dwelling-house. Though small, they serve, however, 
to mark and punctuate the magniticent avenues with perennial points 
of admiration. 

The conclusion that I would have drawn from this is not that we 
should follow the expensive example of New York in buying acres by 
tbe thousiind for three or four new parks, but that Congress should 
preserve and protect from all absor])tion or deviustation the very few 
acres in the meager open spaces which are now left in ^Yashington. 
This city is destined to l)e visited, perhaps inhabited, by many pei-sons 
devoted to professional, literary, and scientific pursuits, by those hav¬ 
ing more or less culture, who may find it a desirable winter residence; 
but, destitute of commercial and manufacturing advantages, and with¬ 
out even the shadow of political influence, it is unlikely ever to become, 
and I hope it never will become, a great and overgrown smoking me¬ 
tropolis. It is, however, most desirable that with clean streets we 
should have a clean people, and that the city should be distinguished 
for its wide intelligence, for the high personal character of its citizens, 
and become a leader among the prosperous cities of a Republic whose 
people as a whole it may fairly be claimed have more town and private 
libraries and are the best read of any people in the world. 

For a great library a proper site is as essential as a proper building, and 
this consideration derives prominence now from the fact that some of 
our best public buildings unfortunately have not proper sites. It may 
be said that thecheape.st site would be the most proper, but that would 
be an absurdity, as the cheapest might be found on the furthermost 
limits of the District, or on the flats of the Potomac. The site should 
be conveniently near to the Senate and House of Representatives, and 
it must have its foundations resting on ground well drained and wholly 
free from dampness, Tlie site east of the Capitol, contemplated by the 
present bill, fills all these requirements, and its great superiority over 
all others h£is been conceded even by some who have strangely urged 
that even the best site should not be purchased. It is elevated, dry, 
and only one square away from the Capitol, or not more than the dis¬ 
tance from the Senate to the House of Representatives. 

P>ut there may be the embers of a contention that the Library should 


12 


be })laced on some part of the public grounds now owned by the Gov- ^ 
ernmeiit. I liave for many years had oceusion to thoroughly examine 
that question, and I unhesitatingly say that there are no vacant grounds 
belonging now to the Government which even the pages of the Senate 
w’ould recommend for a library site. The most of the existing very 
limited stpiares, triangles, and circles w^ere created by the intersection 
and crossing of streets and avenues, but ail these are too remote and 
insignificant for library purposes, and we have very little, in fact no 
ground leit which is appropriate for any public building. We have, 
it is true. La Fayette Square, in front of the Executive Mansion, and 
Franklin Square, on K street, between Thirteenth and Fourteenth 
streets, but these small squares have been long elegantly laid out and 
planted with trees and shrubs. Not until Sitting Bull gets elected to 
Congre.ss need we expect to have the proposition made to use such 
squares for building sites. 

The only public square we ever had large enough to base even a poor 
argument uj^on, much less a good library, was Judiciary Square, and 
that, w ith only seven votes in its favor, w’as overw’helmingly rejected 
l)y the Senate. Since that the square has, I hardly know how, been 
jumped upon by the Pension Department, although its occupation by 
any building, as it seems to me, must be regarded ere long almost as a 
public calamity. We could not well afford with our limited po.sses- 
sions everywhere to part wdth so large a part of Judiciary Square in a 
region where for a mile square there is nothing else. It was an unex¬ 
pected wrong precipitated upon those who have homes and families in 
that part of the city. 

It is, therefore, a grave error to suppose that w^e now have anywhere 
suitable grounds wdiich w^ere reserved for and intended to be occupied 
by public buildings. The plan of the city was made under the direc¬ 
tion of Washington, and where he said “Let there be light and fresh 
air ” it will be better not to be in haste to blot out such vacant spaces 
with even an architectural display of bricks and mortar. Open spaces, 
rich in foliage and flowers, are as conducive to the health as to the 
beauty of the city, and they are all too few for the number of children 
here, which, during the better half of the year, throng and decorate 
them Avith a loveliness beyond the reach even of flowers. They should 


13 


be wholly and sacredly preserved. The people of this city have some 
rights which Congress should feel it a point of honor to respect. The 
Capitol with its grounds has grown to be precious to the eyes of the 
American people, will grow to be worthy of the great Republic, and if 
we can do little to exalt it, let us do nothing to drag it down. 

It happens that what is now proposed will be most for the advantage 
of Congress, studying that advantage only, but should it also happen 
to confer a slight local advantage upon the city of Washington, there is 
no reason why we should not accept of it for the capital of the whole 
country as gladly as we all would were it for a building in the ciipital 
of any State. 

The fees paid into the Treasury on account of records of copyright 
are increasing every year, and for the past five years were as follows; 
1879, 114,689.90; 1880, $16,303.50; 1881, $17,051.50; 1882, $18,554; 
1883, $20,000—amounting to $86,898.90. 

Hereafter this source of income will annually exceed the sum of 
$20,000, a sum which wall much more than cover the interest on the 
cost of the site proposed to be purchased for the Library. It will, there¬ 
fore, be noticed that the Library is an institution which earns a stable 
and independent cash income, and is at the same time receiving a .still 
larger annual income in books and other publications, valued at not less 
than $25,000, which costs the Government nothing. Here, then, is an 
amount of $45,000 this year, and not less every succeeding year, which 
tends to show that the Library has some just claim to have a house and 
home large enough to hold the whole of its treasures now and hereafter. 

Po.ssibly some may not see their wny clear to vote for a new library, 
as some votes were given in 1815 against the purchase of Mr. Jefferson’s 
library, but all would regard it as a great mistake if the twenty-seven 
wagon-loads of books from Monticello had not been purchased. 

It will be a grave mistake, possibly a calamity, to postpone the con¬ 
struction of a library for a single year; and I urgently ask that the 
Senate will appreciate the importance of at once taking care of the most 
valuable library now existing on the American continent. 

Mr. President, I now ask that this bill shall be made the special or- 
der for Tuesday next. 

Mr. MORGAN. I object to that. 


14 


The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Platt in the chair.) The Sen¬ 
ator from Vermont asks that the bill under consideration be made the 
special order for Tuesday next, at 2 o’clock the Chair supposes. 

Mr. MORGAN. I hope that this bill, as well as every other one on 
the Calendar, will be allowed to take its regular course. We have just 
adopted a system of rules, which in themselves are very fine, to give every 
Senator and every committee here an opportunity to have his or its hill 
considered by the Senate in due and proper order. This is not a case 
of emergency; we have been at this subject for many years; and whether 
this bill shall be heard at the time designated or whether it shall be 
two weeks or three weeks later can not affect the welfare of the coun¬ 
try. 

I shall insist, although it is not a pleasant thing to have to do, that 
our rules shall be adhered to, so that we can get some benefit from the 
labors whicli our Committee on Rules have performed so ably in giv 
ing us a better system than we had before. 

Mr. MORRILL. The Senator will remember that it was the general 
expression that there would be no dissent to making the bill a special 
order after this morning if I did not insist on any action at the present 
time, and I hope the Senator from Alabama will not object. 

Mr. MORGAN. I do not want to set myself against the judgment 
of the Senate about this, but I shall ask a vote upon it. If a special 
order is made it must be done by a vote. 

Mr. MORRILL. I move that the bill be made the special order for 
Tuesda}’ next. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. IlAWLEY in the chair). The ques¬ 
tion is on the motion of the Senator from Vermont that the bill under 
consideration be made the special order for Tuesday next, at 2 o’clock. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. Under the rule I believe it requires 
a two-thirds vote to make any matter a special order. 

Mr. MORGAN. I call for the yeas and nays on the motion. 

Mr. MORRILL. I did not suppose the motion would be resisted 
after the general expression in favor of making the bill a special order. 
I hope there will be no objection. It is a very important bill, and it 
ought to go to the House earl 3 \ 

Mr. MORGAN. I call for the yeas and nays. 


15 


The yeuvS and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 
45, nays 8; as follows: 


YEAS-45. 


Aldrich, 

Hale, 


Lapham, 

Sawyer, 

Anthony, 

Hampton, 


Logan, 

Sewell, 

Bayard, 

Harrison, 


McPherson, 

Sherman, 

Blair, 

Hawley, 


Manderson, 

Slater, 

Camden, 

Hill, 


Maxey, 

Vance, 

Colquitt, 

Ingalls, 


Miller of Cal., 

Vest, 

Conger, 

Jackson, 


Mitchell, 

Voorhees, 

Culloni, 

•Jonas, 


Morrill, 

Walker, 

Frye, 

Jones of Florida, 

Platt, 

Wil.son. 

Garland, 

Jones of Nevada, 

Pugh, 


Gibson, 

Kenna, 


Ransom, 


Gorman, 

I^mar, 


Saulsbury, 



• 

NAYS—8. 


Allison, 

Cameron of Wis., 

Fair, 

Morgan, 

Call, 

Coke, 


George, 

Van Wyck. 



ABSENT—2:1. 


Beck, 

Dawes, 


Hoar, 

Pike, 

Bowen, 

Dolph, 


McMillan, 

Plumb, 

Brown, 

Edmunds, 


Mahone, 

Riddleberger, 

Butler, 

Farley, 


Miller of N. Y., 

Sabin, 

Cameron of Pa., 

Groome, 


Palmer, 

Williams. 

Cockrell, 

Harris, 


Pendleton, 



So the motion was agreed to. 




t 




V 


DEMOCRATIC TARIFF PLATFORMS REVIEWED. 


REMARKS 


HON. JUSTIN S. MORRILL, 

f • 

OW VERIVLONT, 


SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 


Wednesday, April 16 , 1884 . 


WASHINGTON. 

1884 . 






REMARKS 


O V 

HON. JUSTIN 8. MOREILL. 


In reply to Senator Beck, of Kentucky, on a “tariflffor revenue only.** 

Mr. MORRILL said: 

Mr. President: I feel it my duty to ask unanimous consent of the 
Senate to redeem the promise that I made something more that a week 
ago to give some sort of an answer to the speech made by the Senator 
from Kentucky [Mr. Beck] ; and rather than interpolate a speech into 
the bankruptcy bill, although I think that bill an exceedingly appro¬ 
priate bill to precede some tariff bills, I ask unanimous consent that I 
may occupy the attention of the Senate this morning. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate has heard the request of 
the Senator from Vermont. Is there objection? The Chair hears none; 
unanimous consent is given; and the Senator from Vermont will pro¬ 
ceed. 

Mr. MORRILL. Never was {he old proverb more true than to-day 
that “Evil communicationscorrupf good manners.” I hope I am jus¬ 
tified in claiming to be generally an observer of the rules of the Senate 
and do not make speeches on the tariff when an education bill is the 
order of the day; but my friend the distinguished Senator from Ken¬ 
tucky a little more than a week ago set the bad example of making an 
irrelevant speech, and, like Dryden’s Alexander at the famous Persian 
feast— 

Fought all his battles o’er again; 

And thrice he routed all his foes; and thrice he slew the slain. 

The Senator’s ostensible excuse was that it might be the only chance 
afforded to him “to lay before the Senate and the people the iniquities 
of the present tariff system of taxation. ” My excuse is that it may be 
my only chance to lay before the Senate and the people the iniquities 
of the Senator’s speech. This labor on my part has not been sought, 
but I fear even the Senator himself would think me remiss in my duty 
if I were to omit that special attention to which, from his recognized 
ability, he is so well entitled. 

It is obvious from the abundance of his rather bitter epithets that 
the Senator starts out with a preconceived theory that the present tariff 
is wholly bad, and he seems quite ready, as a Brahmin would say, “to 
believe a piece of sandalwood to be a flame of fire.” Even his friends, 
like the Senator from Mississippi, compliment the ability and apologize 
for the chronic idiosyncrasies of theSenator from Kentucky, as follows: 

Right here in the speech of the Senator from Texas on yesterday the Senator ^ 
from Kentucky [Mr. Beck] interposed, whose attention I have no doubt was 
called to this debate by hearing the words “taxation for revenue,” for it seems / 
the Senator fi-ora Kentucky dreams of “revenue,” “taxation for revenue,” 
“tariff for revenue,” sees it in clouds, “hears it in the wind;” it is his moaning 
lullaby, if I may so say, and his last requiem at night. 






This may be too flattering, but I can not have the ill-grace to with¬ 
hold any part of it. 

In view of the apprehended failure of the House tariff bill, the chiet 
purpose of the Senator’s long and elaborate speech was to say to the 
House what Lady Macbeth said to her doubting and slow-going hus¬ 
band: . . 

But screw your courage to the stickuig-place, 

And we’ll not fail. 

The Senator was very pronounced, even expert, as the ostentatious 
and self-constituted whip, at long range, of the other branch of Con¬ 
gress, but whether or not that branch will accept with meekness and 
docility the discipline so vigorously administered remains to be seen. 
He served this rather stinging notice upon those “ who think they are 
Democrats:” 

Men who think— 

Said he— 

they are Democrats, and take the position that the Senators from Vermont and 
Ohio do, will find but little comfort inside of the Democratic camp after the 
national convention meets. 

And he further politely told them that “sneaks and cowards never 
command respect. ’ ’ 

This means business. AVhen the Senator from Kentucky holds the 
whip he always means business; and in a few days I fear some parties 
will be hurt; in fact some have already been hurt, and now “And but 
little comfort inside of the Democratic camp. ’ ’ Diogenes was banished 
from Sinope, but he is said to have retaliated by condemning his prose¬ 
cutors to remain in Sinope. '\Vhich was the severest sentence the world 
has ever been in doubt, and it may be, after the Democratic camp has 
been purged of all those who do not take the position of the Senator 
from Kentucky, that those who remain “will find but little comfort. ” 

The Senator dismisses old partners in an hundred battles, to oblivion 
and silence, as though he had ail majorities at his “beck and will,” 
and then proposes, at the national convention, to seize the political 
rudder and guide the ship of state with but one rag of bunting flying, 
on which shall be inscribeuthe legend, “ Kentucky only.” 

Senators will acquit me from having ever exhibited a willingness to 
make a party issue of the tariff question, which, being so interwoven 
with the general welfare of every portion of our country, I have been 
reluctant to appropriate, even its apparent advantages; but if our Demo¬ 
cratic opponents, bidding adieu to their earlier platforms and to the 
teachings of their ancient and most renowned leaders, choose to thrust 
this new issue upon us, tliey may rest assured that the conflict ^vill 
not be shunned, and that it may require all their reserves except in 
Kentucky, a State which may not seek the felicity in this contest of 
furnishing its full quota of combatants on both sides. 

Last year a revision of the tariff was made, largely guided by the aid 
of a most intelligent commission previously authorized by Congress, 
and yet before this revision has been in practical operation bejmnd a 
fraction of one year, with results yet unascertained and unascertainable, 
it is slandered, passionately denounced, and the purpose earnestly pro¬ 
claimed by the latest ofl&cial organs of a great political party to make a 
sweeping and indiscriminate reduction of the tariff', applicable, right or 
wrong, to the great bulk of foreign imports. This is to be done osten¬ 
sibly with a view to reduce the amount of revenues, and yet its advo¬ 
cates contend, or have contended, that revenues would belncreased by 


o 


a reduction of duties, and the consequent opening of the doors to wider 
importations. 

It is not to be done because American industries are in a prosperous 
condition and ready to suddenly meet greater foreign competition, for 
we have not wholly escaped the universal depression of business and 
trade which now vexes the whole world, but it is to be done, as boldly 
announced by sound of trumpet and bagpipe, to lift from an extreme 
exigency a political party, now for many years lacking the confidence 
of the country, a party which twenty-odd years ago was weighed in the 
balance, found wanting, and went out of power, for reasons not need¬ 
ful to state, but which would now return to power by a general war¬ 
fare against the entire home industries of the country. 

The declaration without reserve is further made that what is now 
proposed is but an installment or the first step in the war, and that other 
far-reaching and more destructive campaigns are to follow. Should the 
war come up to the Democratic manifesto we may bid adieu to all new 
enterprises and those in existence may at once prepare their winding- 
sheets. The bane of American manufactures, resulting in untold losses, 
has too often been the lack of stability or the unending succession of new 
tariff laws, ever making capital distrustful and labor hopeless. The 
defects of tariffs doubtless sometimes require to be cured; and last year 
an appropriate remedy to our revenue laws was aj)plied, as was believed; 
but before we are made certain of the healthful effects of the medicine 
thus administered it is proposed by some doctors, suspecteil even by 
their friends to be quacks, to administer a horizontal dose of the “ queer, ’ ’ 
or a dose to give everybody a foretaste of free tnwle; and we need not 
wait to know what must be its effects, as it would hardly be less than 
general disaster, if not ruin, to the productive and business interests 
of the American people. 

Our own experience proves that the experiment of a blind horizontal 
reduction of the tariff is not only dangerous but intolerable. The coun¬ 
try, whenever it has been tried, has not endured it and will not. To 
justify a change in the tariff the benefits should be large and substan¬ 
tial, and certainly not capricious or partisan. It will hardly do to 
trust such changes to those who pay no deference to usage, no favor to 
labor or to invested capital, and who see no difiiculties in any of the prob¬ 
lems of government, but fancy that a just and well-arranged tariff can 
be evoked in five minutes by the stroke of a pen. 

It has been proposed to take off 20 per cent, of the existing tariff upon* 
every article from head to foot, luxuries as well as necessaries, with 
such exceptions as may have been found expedient to offer for a much- 
wanted vote, but going skin-deep everywhere and cutting to the bone 
in many tender places, in order to resurrect an old party and give it a 
new character furnished with a new political catechism, as though its 
House of Representatives would not shipwreck even a new and the best 
character by its misdeeds before the end of the first session of its offi¬ 
cial career. The burden will lie heavily upon those who are seeking 
to bleed, more or less, every industry of the country, before the wounds 
of last year’s tariff reductions are yet healed, to give some better rea¬ 
sons than have yet appeared for such an universal disturbance of labor 
and of capital. 

This horizontal 20 per cent, experiment was m^e in 1857, and at 
once became one of the potential reasons for the tariff of 1861. It was 
again tried at half the rate, or 10 per cent., in June, 1872, and was 
quickly repealed, or restored, in March, 1875. The method is that of 


the guillotine, and has nothing to recommend it but its bre^^ity. No 
one but Doctor Sangrado, who practiced blood-letting for all ailments, 
could give it his approval. Even the ‘ ‘ revenue only ’ ’ inspired Senator 
from Kentucky, in his speech the other day, made this truthful and 
touching confession, and I want to give him this credit, perhaps my only 
chance, for it was the rarest gem in the speech. Said he: 

I admit that we have not been able to present a very satisfactory bill for 
relief from tariff taxation in the House of Representatives. 

No; about as “satisfactory” as the jug of horse-medicine Sancho 
Panza mistook for oldJamaica, but, like Sancho, the Senator appears to 
have a well-drilled appetite, and is very earnest that the House shall 
take it without wincing. 

It is now loudly proclaimed by leading Democrats that they must 
seize upon the tariff question and offer “a tariff for revenue only ” as 
the great political issue or the only St. Jacob’s Oil with which to con¬ 
quer, because they have nothing else. This is at least a confession that 
upon all other matters the Republican administration deserves well of 
the country, and that there is no other vulnerable point open to attack. 
Before I get through I shall endeavor to show that the doctrines and 
traditions of the Democratic party were not always in harmony with 
this platform, which claims its sire in Kentucky, and its dam will be 
likely to be found in some other State. 

The Democratic party have always claimed that they have controlled 
the United States Government for the most part of the time during the 
first seventy years of its history. But all the Presidents, without excep¬ 
tion, up to and including President Jackson, concurred in the general 
tone of encouragement and protection to those who should embark their 
capital and labor in manufactures. Even just prior to a second election, 
General Jackson was not tempted to say a “ tariff for revenue only,” 
but still clung to his idea of a “judicious tariff.” Mr. Dallas, in his 
report on the tariff of 1816, said: 

There are few if any governments which do not regard the establishment 
of domestic manufactures as a chief object of public policy. The United States 
have always so regarded it. 

It is a significant fact during the earlier days of the Republic that 
the Committee on Manufactures in the House of Representatives had 
charge of tariff bills, conclusively showing that protection was a lead¬ 
ing and prominent object and confirming the parliamentary axiom that 
‘ ‘ the child is not to be put to a nurse that aires not for it. ” The Com¬ 
mittee on Manufactures, by a resolution of the House, December 28, 
1827, asked and obtained power to send for persons and papers “to en¬ 
able them to determine with certainty and precision the true condition 
of those interests, and more especially of those manufacturing interests 
which had preferred claims for protection to the National Legislature. ’ ’ 

After receiving a large amount of testimony under oath the tariff bill 
was presented March 4, 1828, by Rollin C. Mallary, of Vermont, chair¬ 
man of the Committee on Manufactures, accompanied by a report writ¬ 
ten by Silas Wright, jr., of New York, a man whose fame, though he 
would not take the second place on the Presidential ticket with Mr. 
Polk, has no second place among the Democrats of that great State, even 
when challenged by a later generation. Such men as he lent a dignity 
and independence to the nation which we might not be able to supple¬ 
ment among those who by their commercial policy would reannex Amer¬ 
ica, as another prostrate Ireland, to the British Empire, and thus reduce 
the national prestige to the rank of a second-cla&s power. 


7 


The tariif bill of 1828, with coiiipouud duties, with specifics, with 
square yard and minimum duties, and all those grim protective features, 
now more irritating to the sensitive nerves of the “ revenue only ” clan 
than would be even a Scotch thistle, became a law, when there was a Dem¬ 
ocratic majority in both Houses of Congress, by the votes of such emi¬ 
nent Jacksonian Democrats as James K. Polk, Dutee J. Pearce, James 
Buchanan, Silas Wright, jr., Joel Yancey, Martin Van Buren, Thomas 
H. Benton, and Richard M. Johnson. These old full-orbed lumina¬ 
ries would now pale their “ ineffectual fire ” in the face of the primacy 
of the inodern transcendent lights of free trade, who now threaten 
trembling non-conformists with excommunication—possibly a bigger 
bull than their latest tariff bill. 

The old line Democrats, and I was trained in that faith, legitimately 
following Henry Clay, Avould no more have been expected to separate 
themselves from a protective tariff than that the earth itself should be 
divorced from the solar system. It is the cardinal principle of that hu¬ 
mane statesmanship which enables men to earn more and live better and 
cheaper. It is the only policy which can make agricultural pursuits 
permanently remunerative. It is that system which largely increases 
the aggregate productions of manufactures and makes them, therefore, 
of less price to the whole world. It diversifies employments, giving to 
the strong and the weak of both sexes greater opportunities for earning 
a livelihood, as well as for increasing their general knowledge. It offers 
a premium to skill and intelligence and promotes all of the useful arts. 

There appears to be a sudden disposition upon the part of the new 
chieftains, I vdll not say bosses, of the Democratic party, to throw over¬ 
board any Pennsylvania or other Democrat of the old regulation pattern. 
Vice-President Dallas, whose name once sweetened a Democratic ticket 
heralded with the strange device of “Polk, Dallas, and the tariff of 
1842,” would now be told in a Democratic caucus of to-day to take his 
‘ ‘ grip-sack ’ ’ and be off with himself. President Buchanan, a life-long 
Jacksonian-protective-tariff Democrat, full of honors conferred by the 
Democratic party, crowned his political life by giving his Presidential 
signature on the 3d of March, 1861, to what has sometimes been called 
the Morrill tariff. 

The'distinguished Senator from Kentucky looks forward with exulta¬ 
tion to the platform which the national Democratic convention at Chi¬ 
cago will adopt. “Adopt” is the proper word, for it is supposed to be 
already made in Kentucky, where all Bourbon manufactures can be 
cunningly reproduced in the greatest old-regime perfection; and it is as 
thoroughly seasoned as could be expected after a bonded ripening of 
eight years. The Senator of course expects this platform to be of the 
Kentucky-only patent pattern. But what if Virginia should insist upon 
a tincture of iron? Or what if California or Florida should stick on 
having some show in the timber ? Or what if Louisiana should refuse 
to swallow it without a lump of sugar? Or what if Ohio, with a lamb¬ 
like utterance, should denounce the “Kentucky-only” platform as 
swinish, and “all cry and no wool”? 

But the Democratic party has been an industrious as well as a ver¬ 
satile architect in the construction of platforms, calculated, like the 
Old Farmer’s Almanac, for the meridian of Lexington, but expected to 
answer for the surrounding country. They have been of different orders 
as the fashion of the times demanded. Sometimes the Doric, and then 
the Renaissance; sometimes Corinthian and again the Queen Anne style; 
but all, like my distinguished friend’s speeches, very miscellaneous. 


composite, and affluent in misrepresentation. If the Senator from Ken • 
tucky can fix up the fashion and foretell what pieces of hard and soft 
timber, of leather and prunella will be dovetailed together at Chicago, 
whether it will be a fish or a rooster, or how long it will last, he will 
have established his fame as high as any of the noblest figures which 
announce the direction of the wind from our tallest steeples. 

The new platforms of Democratic national conventions must here¬ 
after receive attention, however little consideration has been bestowed 
upon their previously buried offspring. The rumbling thunder of the 
speech of the Senator from Kentucky, delivered on the third instant, oper¬ 
ated as loud explosions are always said to upon deceased bodies in the 
deep waters of the sea, and has brought to the surface the ghastly forms 
of the dead and sunken platforms of former days. Notwithstanding 
the ‘ ‘ ancient and fish-like ’ ’ odor of which their decayed condition may 
furnish a hint, I hope to be excused if I venture to ask that these once 
loved relics shall not be wholly neglected by their surviving relatives 
and friends. 

Lest it should be supposed that I am not speaking by the book of this 
classic branch of Democratic literature, I shall present some extracts 
showing the quadrennial devotion of the Democratic party to inconsist¬ 
ency, never failing to court the latest popular breeze, believing that—- 

Except wind stands as never it stood, 

It is an ill wind turns none to good. 

The Republican platform adopted by the Congressional caucus in 
1800—and the Democratic party now claims that it then bore the name 
of Republican—contained as one of its planks the following; 

Encouragement of science and the arts in all their branches, to the end that 
the American people may perfect their independence of all foreign monopolies, 
institutions, and influences. 

This was a very broad and explicit indorsement of the principle of 
encouragement “ of the arts in all their branches,” and “ of universal 
independence of all foreign monopolies.” Before I get through it will 
be seen that the times change and Kentucky changes with them, but so 
much the worse for Kentucky. 

I have found no record of a national Democratic platform again until 
1836, when the Declaration of Independence, that all men were born 
free and equal, appears to have been adopted without any serious oppo¬ 
sition, though twenty years later its author was widely denounced as a 
visionary philosopher, uttering ‘ ‘ glittering generalities, ’ ’ and not a word 
about the tariff; but a further solemn declaration was made of “un¬ 
qualified hostility to bank notes and paper money as a circulating me¬ 
dium, because gold and silver is the only safe constitutional currency.” 
That doctrine as an article of unqualified Democratic faith seems to 
have lost its sweet-smelling savor, and now the illicit miscegenation of 
the Democratic party with the (ireenback and paper-money race has 
become so widespread and ineradicable that it has obtained some sanc¬ 
tion through the war powers of the Supreme Court. It may be ob¬ 
served that Democratic national platforms are perhaps intended to be 
good only for each season or until after the election, and, like cheap 
through railroad tickets, are destitute of hold-over advantages. 

In 1840 the Democratic platform set forth— 

That the Oonstltution does not confer upon the General Government the 
power to commence and carry on a general system of internal improvement. 

This resolution was again and again repeated, though in the face of 


it the Illinois Central Railroad, with many other railroads, through 
Democratic support, received immense subsidies in land. Finally, in 
1860, both the Douglas and Breckinridge wings of the Democratic party 
declared that— 

The Democratic party pledge such constitutioual government aid as will in¬ 
sure the construction of a railroad to the Pacific coastat the earliest practicable 
period. 

This being special—only reaching across the continent—and not be¬ 
longing to a general system of internal improvements, had to be reck¬ 
oned constitutional; but how is it to be reconciled now to pretended 
Democratic hostility to corporations and monopolies? 

In 1872 the party declared: “We are opposed to all further grants of 
lands to railroads or other corporations, ” and now appears to be unde¬ 
termined whether or not to withhold even what has been granted. 

In 1840 it would seem that the Democratic party was not so rigid in 
its discipline and tolerated some differences of opinion, and therefore 
resolved not to nominate any one for Vice-President on the ticket with 
Van Buren, because there was a “diversity of opinion.” At this time 
Democratic platforms contained nothing about the tariff, or nothing more 
than general platitudes which might be accepted by anybody, as in 1844, 
when ‘ ‘ the reoccupation of Oregon and the annexation of Texas ’ ’ were 
the great American measures. 

In 1852 the fundamental idea announced was: “ That the Democratic 
party will faithfully abide by and uphold the principles in the Kentucky 
and Virginia resolutions of 1798 and 1799. ’ ’ This they again solemnly 
repeated in 1856, and also resolved to hold sacred the principles of the 
Monroe doctrine. It is a subject of profound gratification to find that 
the party hold anything as sacred. It is to be feared that they gener¬ 
ally adhere to the fjrofane. 

In 1860 the platform of both wings of the party contained this reso¬ 
lution, namely: 

That the Democratic party are in favor of the acquisition of the Island of 
Cuba on such terms as shall be honorable to ourselves and just to Spain. 

That is to say, the party no longer supported the filibuster. General 
Lopez, but was willing to give millions in money to Spain for Cuba 
and its slaves. 

And the Douglas wing was willing to leave the question of slavery 
in the Territories to the Supreme Court, but the Breckinridge wing 
wanted outright the privilege to take their slaves with them to the 
Territories. 

In 1864 the Democratic platform set forth that “after four years of 
failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war ” they demanded 
“that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities.” I 
think they have always been sorry that they said that. 

Ill 1868 their platform demanded the “payment of the public debt of 
the United States as rapidly as practicable,” and also that “when the 
obligations of the Government do not expressly state on their face, or 
the law under which they were issued does not provide, that they shall 
be paid in coin, they ought in right and in justice to be paid in lawful 
money of the United States.” Here they abandoned gold and silver 
and wanted tl^ public debt to be paid in paper money. And the sixth 
resolution of the platform demanded “a tariff for revenue upon foreign 
imports, and such equal taxation under the internal-revenue laws as will 
afford incidental protection to domestic manufactures, aud. as will, with- 


I 


\ 


/ 


10 

out impairing the revenue, impose the least buideu upon and best pro¬ 
mote and encourage the great industrial interests of the country.” 

From this lucid explanation of the great principles of the Democratic 
party it is now plain that internal-revenue taxation is to be forever 
maintained—if they stick to the resolution of 1868—in order to afford 
incidental protection to domestic manufactures. 

In 1872 the National Democratic platform contained the following 
words: 

That there are in our midst honest but irreconcilable differences of opinion 
with re^rd to the respective systems of protection and free trade, we remit the 
discussion of the subject to the people in their Congressional districts and the 
decision of Congress tliereon, wholly free from executive interference or dicta¬ 
tion. 

They no longer admit that “irreconcilable differences” can now be 
“honest.” 

In 1876 the party put forth their declaration for “a tariff for revenue 
only,” and in 1880 they made an important change, saying: “We de¬ 
mand that all custom-house fixation shall be only for revenue. ” The 
order and sequence of the three pivotal words “ for revenue only ” or 
“only for revenue” make all the difference as to which is the head 
and which the tail, or whether “revenue” wags “only” or “only” 
wags ‘ ‘ revenue. ’ ’ It would seem that the Presidential Democratic can¬ 
didate at the last election failed to find out; but, being perhaps in favor 
of “local option ” as to the liquor traffic, finally decided that the tariff 
was also a local-option question. i 

The straight-out Democratic national jdatform at Louisville, in 1872, 
could not indorse Mr. Greeley, but went far to conciliate its protective- 
tariff brethern by the following: 

Resolved, That the interests of labor and capital should not be permitted to 
conflict, but should be harmonized by judicious legislation. While such a con¬ 
flict continues, labor, which is the parent of wealth, is entitled to paramount 
consideration. 

Even Horace Greeley might have been content with this very tender 
resolution, and would not have .spit on this part of the straight-out 
platform. 

The Democratic platform of 1876 declared their confidence in “ re- 
publi(‘an self-government ’ ’—strange as it may seem—and ‘ ‘ in the faith¬ 
ful education of the rising generation—that they may preserve, enjoy, 
and transmit these best conditions of human happiness and hope—we 
Ixdiold the noblest products of a hundred years of changeful history.” 

This was rather effusive, but must be construed to mean that the 
nation has some duty in relation to “the faithful education of the ris¬ 
ing generation;” if so, it was rather strange that the recognized leaders 
here of the Democratic party gave so little heed to this article of their 
fiiith in their speeches and votes upon the educational bill which re¬ 
cently passed the Senate. I fear they are heretics and may not long 
enjoy comfort in the Democratic camp. 

With this very abundant historical evidence of the utter untrust- 
worihiness of the modern Democratic party to construct past national 
platforms, what can be expected from any new fabrication? The con¬ 
fidence of the people is not likely to be won by the onli/ journeymen 
now employed. 

A fruitful theme of ill-informed comment has been the supposed dis¬ 
crepancy between what appears to be the amount of the reduction of 
the revenue under the tariff of 1883 and the amount as previously e.s- 
timated. TThis comment is based upon the importations of a fraction, 


I 


11 


or the first half, of the year when no aecuracy is possible, for the reason 
of the permanent difference in the general character and description of 
the merchandise imported in the first half of the year from that which 
must he imported in the last half of the year. 

These importations also change from year to year, as may be seen 
from the years 1876 to 1883, inclusive, when there was but one change 
in the tariff, that on cinchona, utterly insignificant in amount; and yet 
the variation in the amount of revenue and of the ad valorem rates of 
duty on the total imports for each fiscal year were constant, and often 
larger than what has been erroneously represented for the first half of 
the present year compared with the year previous. To compare the re¬ 
sults of one tariff with another can only be done where the imports are 
precisely the same with the same classifications; but the imports are 
never the same, and the classification of the late tariff in some instances 
was changed by placing a lower rate of duty on common descriptions of 
manufactures and a higher rate upon finer and more luxurious descrip¬ 
tions. Still even a brief examination of the imports for nine months 
of the present fiscal year will show that the figures which have been 
formally paraded as the results of the first six months of the existing 
tariff are fatally unreliable, and that the reduction of the rates of duty 
has been many times greater than what it has been erroneously and 
persistently represented. 

The estimated reduction of receipts by the change of the rates of duty 
on sugar was $15,000,000, and the estimate was based on the nominal 
reduction of rates without taking into account any gain or increase from 
the application of the polariscopic test to the actual amount of saccha¬ 
rine strength in the classification of imported sugars. It now turns out 
that the polariscope has recovered nearly every dollar of revenue that 
was supposed to have been surrendered by the apparent reduction of 
the rates fixed upon sugar. I am quite ready to confess that, for one, 
I did not take this very efficient fraud-detector into any estimate of 
mine, and it only shows the magnitude of the evasions so successfully 
practiced under former tariffs, and which all the vigor of the Secretary 
of the Treasury could not wholly overcome. 

Under the tariff of 1883 an item of great importance, but which cuts 
no figure in public discussion, was the provision by which all charges of 
fees and commissions, as well as all cost of inland transportation, should 
no longer be added to the cost of imported merchandise. Of course this 
permits all merchandise subject to ad valorem duties to be put upon 
our markets at a considerable reduction of cost, and still may leave the 
apparent rate of duty higher than before this very important change 
was made. 

The almost universal undervaluation of imported merchandise, if we 
may give any credit to the long detailed statements of the Secretary of 
the Treasury, is another sickening element of uncertainty in all statis¬ 
tics relative to custom-house revenues. 

In any consideration of the tariff of 1883, and of its reductions, there 
is a further important fact to be taken into the account, and that is the 
large number of articles which were made free and wholly exempted 
from duty. • In order to form a just and proper judgment as to what was 
really effected by the work done on the tariff last year I have had the 
very competent clerk of the Committee on Finance furnish me with a list 
of the changes made, showing the increase or decrease of the rates of 
duty upon 775 of the about 1,100 items which it is supposed are embraced 
in the tari ff. Of tliese 775 items, 63 have been taken from the dutiable 


12 


and put upon the free list; and of the remaining 712 items, only upon 
75 has there been any increase of duties. 

This incretise is generally very slight, except the increase upon cham- 
pjigne and other wines, which, though specific, would add much to any 
general computation of an ad valorem rate of duties, and also very 
largely increase the amount of revenue. This increase was made on 
motion of a Democratic Senator and unanimously agreed to in the 
Senate. From this statement the important fact appears that in the 
late revision, out of 1,100 items embraced in the tariff, more than half 
of the whole, or 637, were subjected to positive reduction, and 63 more 
were entirely exempted from duty. These absolute reductions vary 
from 5 to 40 per cent, on every one of this long list of articles, and they 
stand like a phalanx to dispute the flippant assertions of unblushing 
partisiins that no appreciable reductions have been made, and should 
satisfy all reasonable men that the revision was honestly, intelligently, 
and faithfully made. 

If, as falsely claimed, there has been a large advance made by the act 
of 1883 of the duties on manufactures of wool, the data at hand do not 
show any appreciable falling off in the importations of woolen goods, 
which must of course follow from such an increase of rates. 

At an early day after the adjournment of the present Congress, not 
too long a time to test the existing tariff, if it shall appear that we are 
giving to the Treasury too much revenue, I trust that it will be then 
promptly reduced; but I also hope that any such reduction will be con¬ 
ducted by friends, and not by those who would slaughter the great in¬ 
dustries of the country and put the wages of labor here upon the level 
of those received by people who are compelled to support not only large 
standing armies, but also to support large standing aristocracies. 

The statement of the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics, quoted by 
the Senator from Kentucky, so far as it relates to wool and woolens, is 
wholly misleading and cannot be accepted or used as a just comparison 
of the old and new tariff, or of the results of the act of March 3, 1883, on 
these articles. The average foreign value of wools of the first and second 
classes has remained practically unchanged; and as the duty is now 
wholly specific the decrease shown on estimated ad valorem rates is, 
therefore, very nearly equivalent to the actual removal of the 10 and 
11 per cent, ad valorem made by the bill. 

The present duty on wools costing 30 cents per pound is, for unwashed, 
10 cents per pound; washed, 20 cents per pound; and Jfor scoured, 30 
cents per pound. For wool over 30 cents per pound, unwashed, 12 
cents per pound; washed, 24 cents per pound; and scoured 36cents per 
pound. On the other hand, the duty on wcplens is a mixed or com¬ 
pound duty, and the resulting ad valorem rates depend on changes in 
foreign values of the goods. These values are considerably less in 1883 
than for the period with which the comparison has been made in 1882, 
and they have been still further reduced by persistent and fraudulent 
undervaluations. These natural and artificial reductions have ap¬ 
parently increased the ad valorem rates, when if the estimates could 
have been made on the basis of values of 1882 a larger decrease of the 
rates would have been clearly shown on woolens than on wool. It is 
not necessary, however, to consider any hypothetical conditions, as an 
inspection of the law discloses the fact that the reduction in rates on 
manufactures of wool is greater than on wool. If, however, it shall be 
found that the wool-growers of our country need and can be benefited 
by any proper amendment of the tariff, it will have my cordial support. 


IJ 


The following statement, presented to the Committee of Ways and 
Means in March, 1884, shows the amount of reduction on woolen man¬ 
ufactures in a general way, as effected by the act of March 3, 1883: 

On flannels, blankets, knit-goods, woolen and worsted yarns, manufactures of 
worsted, &c.,valued at not exceeding 30 cents per pound, from 32,78 to 34.78 
per cent. 

Valued at above 30 cents per pound and not exceeding 40 cents per pound, 
25.93 to 29.41 per cent. 

Valued at above 40 cents per pound and not exceeding 60 cents per pound. 
23.53 to 27.06 per cent. f , 

Valued at above 60 cents per pound and not exceeding 80 cents per pound, 
from 23.53 to 26.08 per cent. 

Valued at above 80 cents per pound, the reduction ranges from 13.97 per 
cent, on goods valued at 81 cents, to 7.31 per cent, on goods valued at $1.50 
per pound. 

On woolen cloth, worsted shawls, &c.— 

Valued at not exceeding 80 cents per pound, it ranges from 20.13 per cent, 
on goods valued at 70 cents, to 24.80 per cent, on goods valued at 30 cents 
per pound. 

On finer and higher-priced goods valued at exceeding 80 cents per pound it 
ranges from 7.31 per cent, on goods valued at $1.50, to 13.97 per cent, on 
goods valued at 81 cents per pound. 

These reductions are all exclusive of the reduction produced by tlie abolition 
of the duty on charges and commissions, which is fully equal to"a reduction of 
per cent. 

Reduction in specific rate on— 


Per cent. 


All manufactures of wool, not otherwise specified: 

Not exceeding 80 cents per pound. 30 

Exceeding 80 cents per pound. 30 

Bunting. 50 

Cloaks, dolmans, talmas, ulsters, and other outside garments for ladies’ and 

children’s apparel. 10 

Clothing, ready-made, and wearing apparel, not otherwise provided for, 

and skirts and skirting. 20 

Cloths, woolen shawls: 

Valued at not exceeding 80 cents per pound.. 30 

Valued at exceeding 80 cents per pound. 30 

Dress goods, coat linings, Italian cloths, and similar goods: 

Valued at 20 cents per yard. 16 

Valued at above 20 cents per yard.. 12J 

Weighing over 4 ounces to yard. 30 

Flannels, blankets, hats of wool, knit goods: 

Valued at not exceeding 30 cents per pound. 50 

Valued at above 30 and under 40. 40 

Valued at above 40 and under GO. 40 

Valued at above 60 and under 80. 40 

Valued at above 80. 30 

Webbings of wool of all kinds.. 40 


These are the unimpeachable facts of the record and certainly show 
a very liberal reduction in all the specific rates upon woolen goods. 

Manufactures give employment to a great multitude of persons, widely 
distribute the expenditures, and enrich with their broadcast fertiliza¬ 
tion whole communities; but, with the capital very largely contributicd 
and owned in small parcels, they do not often add to the number of 
millionaires. The importation of foreign merchandise, on the contrary, 
laudable as it may be, should not receive excessive favor and encour¬ 
agement, because it does build up colossal fortunes and makes no dis¬ 
tribution of its profits save among limited numbers and exclusively at 
the ports on the shore where imports are landed. 

New York is a wondrous city, and contains very many worthy men 
who have made princely fortunes in foreign tr^e. These men, to 
whom the whole interior country have always been tributary, are never 
brought into contract with another far greater number of artificers, the 
men who labor with their hands, though they live in the same city. The 
dwellers on the Fifth avenue know no more of those who live down town 


















14 


in flats and cellars than they do of their country cousins. And yet 
these artificers and workmen, according to the census of 1880, produced 
of manufactured commodities in the city of New York, and the annex 
of Mr. Beecher, sometimes called Brooklyn, the astonishing amount in 
value of $650,149,579; while the total amount of merchandise imported 
the same vear, throughout the whole United States, was no more, all 
told, than''$650,149,579. Strange to say, the business of the latter mo¬ 
nopolizes the chief attention, but all the toil represented by the former 
is by the world forgot. Still the world moves on, and it appears, even 
within the two cities referred to, that manufactures are produced of 
scarcely less magnitude than the entire foreign import trade of our 
whole country. 

The number of persons employed in manufactures in New York and 
Brooklyn in 1880 was 274,939. It would be entirely fair to say that 
at least two more persons were wholly dependent upon each of these 
for their support. That will demonstrate that 824,817 of the popula¬ 
tion of these cities have a vital interest in manufactures and the tariff, 
but their voices are silent among the ‘ ‘upper ten thousand, ’ ’ and the 
importers are solidly represented here for free trade, 

The report of the Secretary of the Treasury, April 1, 1884, to the 
House of Representatives furnishes conclusive evidence (in addition 
to the undervaluation of wool) of general and extensive undervaluation 
of imported merchandise when subject to ad valorem duties. He says: 

The honest American merchant is precluded from importing lines of goods 
thus undervalued. 

It thus happens that when Congress enacts that the rates of duty on certain 
goods shall be 50 per cent, ad valorem it is found that perhaps only 30 or 40 per 
cent, is actually paid, according to the boldness and skill of the shipper and his 
American agent in falsifying market values and deceiving the appraising offi¬ 
cers. 

This is the way in which fortunes are made in the foreign trade. 
These are the men who contribute money for the distribution of free- 
trade tracts. Whether by regular orders or by a system of consign¬ 
ments they effectually control the bulk of the trade, and native Amer¬ 
ican merchants find it impossible to compete with them. 

And yet the would be free-traders of New York with their revenue- 
reform clubs, their dependent newspapers, and their great wealth as¬ 
sume to revolutionize the industrial policy of the nation and make it 
subservient to their exclusive aggrandizement. This may find a re¬ 
sponsive echo in Kentucky, but it will not among the workingmen of 
New York city, much less of the Empire State. 

It may be well to remember that 75 per cent, of the importing busi¬ 
ness of New York is carried on by foreigners, a large part of whom are 
aliens who never intend to become citizens. 

Any country solely dependent upon agriculture will forever remain 
comparatively sparsely inhabited and be blessed with only limited fort¬ 
unes. Look at Turkey and Egypt. They are destitute of manufact¬ 
ures, without wealth, and are destined to be the prey of the strongest 
naval or military power, notwithstanding that their territories are easily 
defensible and that their people have the courage and religious fanat¬ 
icism which naturally produce the most formidable soldiers of the 
world. To these countries we might add others, like Ireland, India, 
and Poland, with all their labor confined to the soil, and their trade 
monopolized by imperial powers. How poor they are all the world 
knows and sadly regrets. The Republic of Switzerland, on the con¬ 
trary, mountainous and sterile, is begemmed with manufactories, and, 


t 


!•> 


though surrounded upon aii sides by ambitious nations which often 
wage wars of aggrandizement, yet Switzerland, brave, honest, and in¬ 
dustrious, maintains forever the independence of her people and the 
ownership of their mountain homes. 

Would the land of gallant Poles ever have been subjugated and dis¬ 
tributed by the Holy Alliance had they been anything more than a 
purely agricultural people? Let us confess that the late rebellion in 
the South of eleven States, occupying a territory nearly twice as large 
as that of the other twenty-four, would not have been put down, even 
so soon as four years, had there been no difference in the trained in¬ 
dustrial skill of the respective sections by which the superiority to re¬ 
pair and restore the wide waste of war was found on the side of the 
Union armies. It should be added that this difference Avith the disap¬ 
pearance of slavery is also rapidly disappearing as are other differences. 
There are no controversial abstractions which now prevent a region 
abundantly supplied with raw material, with immense coal-fields, in¬ 
exhaustible mineral resources, and a wdiole race of laborers waiting to 
be employed, from as prosperous a ciireer as awaits any other portion of 
the Union or of the Avorld. 

Our farmers are always dependent upon the home market for not less 
than 92 per cent, of their products, and it is very rarely that there is 
a foreign market for even so much as 8 percent, of their products; and 
this foreign demand is uncertain and most likely in the future to be di¬ 
minished. In 1880 our exports of bread and breadstuffs, the largest 
we ever had, amounted to f)288,036,835, but in 1882 they fell off over 
$100,000,000, and amounted in 1869 to only $53,724,154. Sometimes 
the exports have been even much less. The exports of provisions are 
subject to similar fluctuations. In 1881 they w^ere large and amounted 
to $151,528,268, but fell off in 1883 to $107,388,287. These exports, 
it will be seen, are wholly unstable and unreliable, and no foreign de¬ 
mand occurs save when we are compelled to undersell the Avhole world. 

The production of wheat in India and Australia is already enormous, 
and is rapidly increasing. Great Britain is al most the only nation whose 
consumption largely exceeds its own production. The acreage of Brit¬ 
ish India open to wheatculture is nearly illimitable, and Great Britain 
is bending every effort, by cheaper transportation through the Suez 
Canal, to obtain her chief supplies within herown empire. Forthe long 
future the prospect of a foreign market for the products of the American 
farmer is by no means bright, and yet a constant and large increase of 
these home products of our farmers appears inevitable. With any such 
increase, and with no corresponding increase of demand at home or 
abroad, prices here must year by year tend downward. 

The price of wheat in Chicago to-day is less than 80 cents a bushel, 
or at the lowest point ever reached for many years. The farmer’s hope, 
therefore, and sole permanent reliance is uimn building up a greater and 
surer home market by inducing larger numbers to find employment in 
manufactures, and thus to become regular consumers of agricultural 
products. If this is prevented by any ‘ ‘ revenue-only ’ ’ policy the pros¬ 
perous days of agriculture in America are over, and the farmers will 
work hard and receive only half or two-thirds as much for whatever 
they have to sell as they have heretofore received. In America it is only 
the men who do not labor themselves who advocate the free-trade or 
revenue-only x^olicy. Adam Smith, in his Wealth of Nations, declares 
that— 

Whatever besides tends to diminish in any country the number of artiflcers 


Hi 


and manufacturers tends to diminish the home market, tlie most important ot 
all markets, for the rude products of land, and thereby to discourage agricult¬ 
ure. 

Other high authorities declare that capital carefully employed in 
manufactures by an agricultural nation increase in time the value ol 
the soil tenfold. That there is much truth in these statements appears 
from a table, published in a pamphlet of the Department of Agricult¬ 
ure giving a statement of the local variation of prices of farm lands in 
different States, comparing manufacturing counties with agricultural 
counties. By this (see Table B) it is shown that land in California is 
worth three times as much per acre in the manufacturing as in the agri¬ 
cultural counties. Land in the one manufacturing county in the State of 
Delaware is valued at an average of $73.87 per acre, but in the other 
two counties it is valued at only $21.56 per acre. 

In West Virginia land is valued in manufacturing counties at $48.87 
per acre, but only at $12.18 in other counties. In Ohio manufactures 
decorate almost all parts of the State, with thriving towns and villages, 
and land is valued high; but here, in what may be called specially man¬ 
ufacturing counties, it is valued at $67.85 per acre, and in other coun¬ 
ties at $42.46. In Kentucky land is valued in manufacturing counties 
at $36.48 per acre, but at only. $12.14 per acre in other counties. In 
Minnesota, Connecticut. Georgia, and other States land is valued in 
manufacturing counties at not less than dovrble what it is worth in other 
counties. 

Nearly all of the improved land in this country is cultivated by its 
resident owners, and they will not be slow to perceive the advantages 
which manufactures afford by increasing the value of their estates. 
Kentucky has only to look across the Ohio to be convinced of these 
stubborn facts. 

It is no crime for men or a whole people to change their opinions, 
though it is possible that the change may be to their own hurt. The 
opinions of the Marshalls and of Crittenden were once of high author¬ 
ity in Kentucky, and those of Clay were talismanic as well as conti¬ 
nental in their reach. These renowned statesmen did not propagate the 
dry-as-dust doctrines of free trade, nor its equivalent to be found in the 
fleshless bones of a “tariff for revenue only, ” but a tariff which would 
promote home industries and preserve the fat of the laud for their own 
people. This was the American system for which Henry Clay elo¬ 
quently contended and fondly hoped to see adopted, not only by Ken¬ 
tucky but by the whole country. 

Is it not time for Kentucky to reconsider the question and find out 
whether she has not made a mistake in turning aside from the policy 
and the lead of the great men who once adorned her history ? If the true 
destiny of the State, to which her most distinguished sons once pointed 
the way, has been restrained and dwarfed by the dogmas of a foreign 
and hostile school, I have no doubt that her great men of to-day, and 
they are now here, would willingly obey her mandate, accept of any 
new revelation as to what is just and expedient, and do their best to 
sustain a policy which would be likely to develop the abundant natural 
resources of their noble State, which have unfortunately so long re- 
# mained untouched. 

My respect for Old Kentucky is too great to allow me to utter any¬ 
thing which would wound her sensibilities, though I would not let her 
people sleep while others seem to be distancing her in every decennial 


17 


race; and I may be permitted even to ask Kentucky, with a soil, min¬ 
erals, climate, and water courses unsurpassed, to look at her northern 
sister State of little more than equal size and inquire how it is that 
Ohio appears in the census returns so much the greater State in both 
agriculture and iiianufacturcs if it is not that Ohio has extended a more 
practical hospitality to manufactures? The population of these States 
in 1820 was nearly equal. 

In 1880 the farms in Kentucky amounted to 21,495,240 acres, and in 
Ohio to 24,529,226 acres, giving an advantage of only about 15 per cent, 
to Ohio; but the value of farm products sold, consumed, or on hand was 
in Ohio $156,777,152, while in Kentucky the value was no more than 
$63,850,155, and the value of the farms was almost four times greater 
in Ohio than in Kentucky. 1 will append a table which will show the 
productions of each State, by which it will be seen that Ohio produced 
50 per cent, more corn than Kentucky, four times as much wheat, six 
times as much of oats, four times as much of potatoes, and more than 
live times as much wool. Ohio had also more swine, twice as many cows 
and horses, and vastly greater dairy products. 

But it is true, as will be seen by the table, that Kentucky produced 
a little more, and perhaps better, distilled spirits than Ohio, and almost 
five times as much tobacco. This exhibit as a whole, however, ought 
not to fully satisfy Kentucky, and it is far from being compensated by 
her $75,483,377 only of manufactiu'es when compared with the $348,- 
298,390 of manufactures produced in Ohio. The Mammoth Cave is 
one of the great curiosities of the world, but Kentucky should point 
with pride to something besides the works of nature, and, instead of 
urging an economical policy that will drag down Ohio, should urge 
that other more noble and beneficent policy which will elevate Ken¬ 
tucky to an equal splendor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manderson in the chair). The 
Senator from Vermont will suspend his remarks. The hour of 2 o’clock 
having arrived, it becomes the duty of the Chair to lay before the Sen¬ 
ate the unfinished business of yesterday. 

Mr. BECK. I ask the unanimous consent of the Senate that the 
Senator from Vermont be allowed to conclude his remarks before the 
regular order is taken up. 

Mr. MORRILL. I am much obliged to my friend from Kentucky. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky asks 
unanimous consent that the Senator from Vermont be allowed to con¬ 
clude his remarks. Is there olqection ? 

Mr, HOAR. Leaving the regular order in its place. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. And that the regular order be pro¬ 
ceeded v/ith at the conclusion of his remarks. Is there objection ? The 
Chair hears none. The Senator from Vermont will proceed. 

Mr. MORRILL. The Senator from Kentucky grows indignant upon 
the question of keeping up war taxes in time of peace, and would seem 
to indiciite that the interest on the war debt and pensions of linion 
soldiers can hereafter be paid without war taxe.s. It w'ould be more 
pertinent to probe the question as to what party had made war taxes 
perm an en tl y n ecessa ry. 

The Senator indicates if his theory of a tariff shall be adopted that a 
demand will soon be made ‘rthat apart of the necessary revenue of the 
Government shall be raised by a tax on incomes.” This, of course, is 
Mo-2 


18 


the auxiliary force which is to be summoned to help out the revenue- 
only policy. Let his allies take notice of the banquet to which they 
are to be invited. 

The Senator boldly claims that the 164,000,000 of taxes so properly 
levied on raw cotton should be returned to the South, and does not 
seem to be aware that a report of the Treasury long ago showed that 
little or none of this sum was ever paid by the South, and that if it 
were to be returned nearly every dollar of it would go into the pockets 
of Northern men in Northern States. 

The Senator also reiterates his .stereotyped assertion that “every 
dollar it is proposed to donate cost the labor of the country $5 before it 
reached the Treasury. ’ ’ Of course he means that every dollar collected 
by a protective tariff costs $5. This is refuted by thejudginentof the 
whole world as shown by their adherence to the general tariff system. 
There is not a boy in his teens that will be deceived by the state¬ 
ment. 

The Senator for the fifth or sixth time repeats the words that ‘ ‘ the 
blanket worth $1 pays the same (duty) as that worth $5.” He will 
not see that he is wrong in his facts, nor will he find out that blankets 
are sold here at as low a price as anywhere in the world. He has got 
his tongue attuned to these words, and when he puts it in motion he can 
go off and leave it, feeling sure that the same words will come forth. 
As one of his friends told me, ‘ ‘ he seems to think he has found (in a 
blanket) a thing of beauty which is a joy forever.” 

The Senator very stoutly asserts ‘ ‘ that if Mr. Tilden had been al¬ 
lowed to take his seat the tariff would have been promptly reformed on 
a revenue basis. ” 

To show how strangely the Senator misrepresents Mr. Tilden it is 
only necessary to cite what General John B. Gordon, after a call upon 
him, sets forth as the real position of Mr. Tilden. General Gordon says: 
“Mr. Tilden favored Mr. Payne as the most available man, but ex¬ 
pressed the opinion that he, too, would decline to run. * * * He 
[Mr. Tilden] objected strongly to making the tariff the leading issue of 
the Ciimpaign, insisting that the true policy of the Democrats was com¬ 
prehended in the general term of reform. ” It is significant that Mr. 
Tilden’s favorite candidate is Mr. Payne, an Ohio protective-tariff Demo¬ 
crat, and that he is also for keeping quite dark on the tariff as a leading 
issue. 

A tariff with incidental protection is a legitimate child of the fathers 
of the Republic, nursed and maintained by the principles of urgent 
expediency, recognized and enforced by the great leaders of American 
institutions, when all state protection was to be superseded, as incon¬ 
testably constitutional, and has resulted in the achievement of a na¬ 
tional prosperity and growth by the uselul arts of peace unexampled in 
the history of the human race. 

It is sometimes claimed that this child, though having a constitu¬ 
tional and lawful birth, has now reached the age of maturity, when it 
should wrestle with and pit itself against the world, and is entitled to 
no further fiivors from its own family and home. Let it, however, be 
remembered that we started from the date when we were not permitted 
by colonial masters to make even a wool hat or a hobnail, while other 
• peoples had enjoyed all the training and skill to be acquired in many 
preceding ages. We started as the merest tyros in manufactures, while 
all the master-workmen were domiciled in foreign lands. British artifi- 


19 


cers were forbidden to go abroad, and if they went, were outlawed. 
It is true that we have made a most commendable progress; and were 
foreign skill and competition gauged by its standard of one hundred 
years ago we should, perhaps, ask no favors; but during the past cen¬ 
tury, while we have advanced, foreign nations have not stood still, and 
in the i>roductions which re(iuire extended labor and what might be 
almost termed hereditary aptitude it must be confessed that we have 
no workmen of equal skill who can be employed on the low terms ac¬ 
cepted abroad. The difference of wages makes the difference, where 
there is any difference, in the price of merchandise here and elsewhere. 
That a wide difference does exist in wages no candid man will deny. 
At the very least this difference is 25 per cent, all over the American 
continent, and often 33f per cent, or over in all foreign lands. Free 
trade would compel Americans to do something like 50 per cent, more 
work or to accept of 50 per cent, less wages. There can be no other 
result. To this complexion free trade must come at last, and a tariff 
for revenue only is a twin-brother of free trade. 

The grandeur of our growth in agricultural and other industrial pro¬ 
ductions, in wealth and commerce, in learned and charitable institu¬ 
tions, compared with the foremost nations of the world, greatly and 
sufficiently vindicates the established American policy of raising a na¬ 
tional revenue by a tariff which throws a large share of its burdens 
upon foreigners and gives sufficient incidental protection to our people 
engaged in multiplying and greatly augmenting our home productions 
and the general comforts of life. 

The condition of laboring men and women here compared with the 
most favored conditions elsewhere shows the universal superiority of 
the thrift, intelligence, and sturdy independence of American homes 
and thoroughly refutes all charges against the policy of protection. 
Nowhere can the laboring man buy a shirt or a decent coat with less 
hours of labor than in the United States. Nowhere can tea and coffee 
be had at a less price; and noAvhere Ciin breadstuffs, butcher’s meat, 
and all the common necessaries of the household be had so cheaply; and 
nowhere is the family of the laboring man so much respected or better 
housed. 

Any change made in the tariff by which larger importations of foreign 
merchandise shall be made would supersede and take the place of the 
same amouut of American merchandise, and the labor here employed 
in its production would remain idle or be forced into other avocations, 
or have its wages put upon a level with the lowest grade of mankind. 
Ninety per cent, of all home consumption, it is fairly estimated, must 
be credited to those who labor with their hands. If productions are 
diminished they are to be the chief sufferers. If those now at work 
in mines, mills, and factories are driven into the field of farmers the 
increase of agricultural crops will diminish prices, and in the aggregate 
they will be of no more value than the present aggregate. The inex¬ 
orable law of supply and demand will forever regulate prices. 

If I have treated the positions of the Democratic party on the subject 
of the tariff with some levity, it is because some part of the discussion 
has been provocative of nothing else. But I by no means underrate the 
gravity of the questions involved, and I profoundly regret that the vast 
business interests of the country, at a moment of almost world-wide 
depression, should be subjected and subordinated to the supposed exi¬ 
gencies of a partisan and political campaign. 


20 

Table A. — Ohio cuul Ketitacky, according to census of 1880. 




Ohio. 

Kentucky. 

Farms. 

.acres... 

24,529,226 

21,495,240 

Value of farms, including 

iiipi's 

land, fences, and build- 

SI, 127,497,353 

$156,777,152 
111,877,124 

$299,298,631 

Value of farm products 
hand . 

sold, consumed, or on 

$63,850,155 

Com. 

.bushels... 

72,852,263 

Oats. 


28, 664,505 

4,580,738 

Wheat. 

.do. 

46,014,869 

ll,a56,113 

Bar-ley. 

.do. 

1,707,129 

486, .326 

Hay. 

.tons... 

2,212, 133 

218,739 

Sorghum molasses. 

.gallons... 

1,229,852 

2,962.965 

Tobacco. 

.pounds... 

34,735,235 

171,120,784 

Value of distilled liquors. 

$6,692.736 

$8,281,018 

Irish potatoes. 

.bushels... 

12,719,215 

2,269,890 

Sweet potatoes. 

.do. 

239,578 

1,017,854 

Wool. 


25,0a3,756 

4,592.576 

Value of orchard products 

$3,576,242 

$1,377,670 

Horses. 

.number... 

736,478 

372,648 

Cows. 


767,043 

301,882 

Dairy products : 

Butter. 

.pounds... 

67,634,263 

18,211.904 

Cheese. 


2.170,245 

468 

Swine. 


.3,141,333 

2,225,225 

Value of manufactures.... 


$318,298,390 

$75,483,377 


Local variation of prices of farm lands in certain States. 


Cali o ’nia. 

CoL r ido. 

Connecticut..., 

Delaware. 

Florida. 

Georgia. 

Illinois. 

Iowa. 

Kansas. 

Kentucky. 

Ohio. 

Loui.siana. 

Maryland. 

Minnesota. 

Nebraska. 

Pennsylvania. 

Tennessee. 

Texas. 

We.st Virginia 


Manufacturing 

counties. 

Other coun¬ 
ties. 

N u in h e r of 
counties. 

Value per 
j acre. 

N u m b e r of 
counties. 

Val u e per 
acre. 

6 

$36 .37 

46 

$12 78 

2 

44 19 

29 

19 91 

3 

71 84 

5 

34 68 

1 

73 87 

2 

21 56 

1 

14 45 

38 

6 14 

7 

9 22 

1.30 

4 10 

10 

43 96 

92 

29 89 

9 

32 28 

90 

21 62 


24 53 

99 

10 31 

10 

36 48 

107 

12 14 

12 

67 85 

76 

42 46 

2 

20 59 

56 

7 05 

8 

48 94 

16 

22 49 

6 

26 24 

72 

12 96 

2 

19 09 

68 

10 21 

13 

86 73 

54 

40 02 

4 

17 83 

90 

• 9 56 

3 

10 23 

207 

4 61 

2 

48 87 

52 

12 18 


o 




















































































THE TARIFF 


"Whoever buys a nail, a hoe, an ax, a yard of cloth, or spool of thread in all the 
tens of thousands stores and shops where merchants sell their wares, meets there 
the tax-gatherer taking taxes for the Government or bounty for the manufacturer. 


SPEECH 

OF 



OW ILLIISrOIS, 

IN THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


Tuesday, Mat 6,1884. 


The assertion that the friends of tariff reform would abandon tariff taxes as ft 
principal source of revenue, is a weak invention of those who would hide their* 
own rightly distrusted purposes and evasions of public duty. 


WASHINGTON, 

1884 . 



2 ^ 








SPEEOn 

OP 

HON. WILLIAM R. MORRISON, 


The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5893) to reduce import duties and 
war-tariff taxes— 

Mr. MORRISON said: 

. Mr. Chairman : Should the motion soon to be made, of which we 
have notice, prevail, it will cut off all legislation for reduction of taxes 
proposed by the bill in its present form or as it may be amended. It 
will be a declaration of this Congress at least that tariff taxes are not 
too high and ought to be continued. It will mean an appeal from the 
Congress to the country, and the people will so understand it. 

In opening the debate I anticipated and answered, so ffir as I am 
capable of answering, most of the obj ections which have since been 
urged against the bill. 

In his anxiety that the country’s wonderful progress shall be credited 
to his favorite theory of protection, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Kasson] who has just spoken forgets the high courage, the inventive 
genius, and industrious skill of our people, their endless wealth of mine 
and field, and puts aside the history of his State and country. It is but 
fourscore years since the Mississippi River marked our western border, 
and Iowa, the home of his adoption, was part of the dominion or terri¬ 
tory of a nation alien to us in language, laws, and civilization. The 
indomitable spirit of our people, guided by a wise statesmanship which 
now it is the custom of some to decry, extended our territory-^our own 
countrj^ and its institutions—to the other ocean, set his own Iowa in the 
heart of the Republic, and laid the foundation for much, for most, of 
the prosperity which the gentleman credits to his pet system of boun¬ 
ties, restrictions, and burdens. 

This territory is now the home of 20,000,000 of our people. It may 
be the home of 250,000,000. Its acquisition postponed for centuries, 
I trust, that crowded condition which is now the chief misfortune of 
the inhabitants of the Old World. It w^as from this territory we took 
that $700,000,000 which during the existence of the present tariff we 
have sent abroad to pay balances of exchange against us. In this ter¬ 
ritory even the poor and landless may find and enjoy their own homes 
and escape the burdens of the taskmaster. It was from this territory 
we carved out and gave to the railroads tying together our two great 
seas, 200,000,000 acres of laud. Acres less than these in Germany and 
neighboring nations support a population larger than our own. 





4 


Among all the agencies which have contributed to our great material 
growth, the extension and development ol'railroads rauk first, for agri¬ 
culture, first among our industries, has found its too meager profits 
not in higher markets, but in lower cost of reaching them. 

Protection has not helped to build, but has been a great hinderauce 
to the building of railroads and lower cost of transportation. It will 
be remembered that two years ago, when the Tariff Commission scheme 
was under consideration, it was shown upon unquestioned authority 
that railroads were then being built through Texas and into Mexico 
upon terms with the Mexican Government which admitted locomo¬ 
tives, rails, and railroad materials free of duty for use south of the Rio 
Grande, while north we required the payment of high protective duties, 
and that, as the result of this, the same railroad built at the same cost 
for labor, cost 25 per cent, more in Texas than in Mexico. Upon this 
basis is it not apparent to all not blind to truth that the vast sums used 
in building the 80,000 miles of railroad since 1860 with the help of 
protection would have built 100,000 without such help ? 

Railroads must be renewed once in twelve years; that is to say, the 
cost of maintaining them twelve years equals the first cost, and the 
yearly cost of maintaining and keeping in repair our 120,000 miles is 
equal to the cost of building 10,000 miles. If we estimate the first cost 
as low as $20,000 per mile, one-fourth of which is shown to result from 
so-called protection, it will be seen that this bounty system increases the 
annual cost of repairing our 120,000 miles of railroad $50,000,000, which 
sum is an annual tax- on the people, charged up to them in the cost of 
carrying the products of their labor to market. No State in regulating 
rates and charges on railroads fails to take into account the cost of build¬ 
ing and maintaining them. As it taxes the people on their transporta¬ 
tion, so this bounty system follows them in all their pursuits and exacts 
a part of their earnings; for to increase the cost to the producer is to 
increase the price to the consumer. 

Often as it has been shown to be a protective fallacy, it is to-day again 
repeated that this bounty-taxing policy lessens the cost of commercial 
and business intercourse on land and sea and of carrying over both; 
that it has cheapened the cost of fuel, food, clothing, and shelter of the 
people, added to their comfort, and given them increased abundance. 
Need I again expose this false claim of those who make it that exist¬ 
ing abuses may be continued and again show that all this abundance 
and plenty results from our ever-growing control over nature’s forces. 
This growth continues not by reason but in spite of tariff-tax restric¬ 
tions and is not confined to any country. Why it is so may be shown 
by a most homely illustration, which I do not now use for the first 
time. 

Not forty years ago corn was mostly shelled by hand. An industri¬ 
ous man might then shell as much as five bushels in one day. 11' he 
received but 50 cents for his day’s work it cost 10 cents to shell a bushel 
of corn. In the gentleman’s State of Iowa last fall I saw men shell¬ 
ing corn and receiving a dollar for a day’s work. They were using 
machinery of most simple structure and shelling corn for 2 cents a bushel. 
The wages were double, while shelling corn was one-fifth the former 
cost. But for the protective tax on the machinery and on the cost of 
living wages would be higher; corn-shelling lower. What is true of 
shelling com is trae of the cost, and consequently of the price, of inak- 




o 


ing articles for use in our fields, homes, and shops, for most of all that 
contributes to the health and comfort of the people. It is true of every¬ 
thing that is made largely by or with the help of machinery. Such are 
the means and the methods by which, in spite of protection’s burdens 
and not with its help, the people enjoy their greatly increased abun¬ 
dance. [Applause. ] 

By offering bounties we have induced our people to invest in manufact¬ 
ures and to abandon the sea to our chief commercial rivals. English¬ 
men now take to themselves all the profits of carrying our products to 
foreign markets. Competing with themselves, they haA^e made greater 
reductions in transportation on the sea than we have made on land, 
greater reductions than we have made on anything in our own country. 
In the lower cost of ocean freights surplus agricultural products have 
found their profits, and certainly this can not be claimed for protection 
by its most greedy advocate. 

The.gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Hammond] suggests that reduc¬ 
tion in the cost of all manufactured articles resulting from the use of 
machinery has occurred in and is common to all civilized countries, and 
I may add, this reduction has occurred here under revenue tariffs, under 
all tariffs. On this subject Mr. Morrill said here in 1860, that a com¬ 
parison of our tariffs, including 1846 and 1857, “will show that we 
have made more rapid -strides in cheapening manufactures, and there¬ 
fore lessening the necessity of incidental protection, than ever England 
made herself in any equal period of time.” 

In his argument for the continuance of existing customs duties the 
honoiable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Judge Kelley] gave us de¬ 
tails of his recent travels abroad and some account of the discontent, 
and he says the “indescribable sufferings, which the masses of the 
people of all transatlantic countries feel they can no longer endure.” 
Finding the people in Great Britain in like suffering condition with the 
Xieople of “all transatlantic countries,” some with, others without, the 
X)rotective system, he, with accustomed protective logic, finds that the 
people of England, Ireland, and Scotland are suffering because of free 
trade and for want of a jirotective tax on their too scanty means of 
subsistence. 

While I am not called upon to defend any commercial system to 
justify a moderate reduction or partial removal of unnecessary taxes, I 
will be pardoned the suggestion that an unbiased look at the history 
of the countries visited by the honorable gentleman could hardly fail 
to discover to him other causes for the mislbrtuiies of the English peo¬ 
ple than their lack of that protective system which has not pved neigh¬ 
boring nations from like misfortunes which he found in all transat- 
lan tic cou ntries. ’ ’ 

Ihe relative merits of governmental policies or bounty systems can 
only t)e ascertained when tried under like conditions. The effect of 
Great Britain’s commercial policy must be determined by a comparison 
of that country with other densely populated countries, or by a compari¬ 
son of England to-day with the England of forty or hfty years ago un¬ 
der a protective policy similar to our own, and to the want of which 
the gentleman attributes all her woes. 

Whatever might be its goodorevil effects upon our own country, the 
condition ol the English, Irish, and Scotch people, bad as it still is, has 
been bettered since the adoption of a freer commercial policy. In a 
late paper or address of Robert Giffen LL. D., president of theStatis- 


G 


tical Society of England, already referred to in this debate, it is shown 
that the working classes have made such progress in the United King¬ 
dom that in some employments their wages have increased one-hall’, in 
some they have doubled, in others they are three times as much, and 
taken altogether it may be fairly stated that wages are twice as high 
as they were forty or fifty years ago. 

On the same authority it may be correctly said that if the honorable 
gentleman from Pennsylvania had sought anything but suffering he 
could have ascertained that where there was no national system of edu¬ 
cation fifty years ago, now nearly all the children of England are in 
school; he would have found there less crime, less pauperism, the hours 
of daily labor shortened, the cost of better living cheaper, and as a con¬ 
vincing proof to all but a protectionist that the people are better fed, 
better clothed, and better housed he could have found the duration of hu¬ 
man life extended, the mean (or average) age at which men and women 
die nearly three years longer where he found nothing but misery and 
misfortune. 

The itinerant humanity of the gentleman from Pennsylvania might 
find temporary exercise in his own country. There is more of what is 
called defective population, more suffering, where society is old than 
where it is new. And so it is with States or nations. Proportioned 
to population in the comparatively old State of Pennsylvania there are 
twice as many criminals, twice as many paupers, as in the newer State 
of Iowa; more persons in Pennsylvania who can not read and who can 
not write. There are more fools in Pennsylvania in proportion to pop¬ 
ulation. [Laughter.] I mean more idiots and insane people. Ido 
not lay the greater misfortunes of this older State to protection. They 
come to Pennsylvania as they come to all the more densely populated 
countries where the people are in each other’s way; but protection, which 
is but another name for taxation, aggravates these evils of society. 

Gentlemen who attribute our national growth and greater prosperity 
of the people to the progressive and creative powet of taxation forget 
all the advantages of this newer world of ours, which yields to both cap¬ 
ital and labor greater profits than they obtain elsewhere, although labor 
gets less than its share. The older countries, the miseries of whose peo¬ 
ple are so often reiterated in behalf of protective taxation, have but 
one or two acres of land to the person; here we have forty or fifty acres. 
Do gentlemen wonder, then, thatour people produce more and earn more 
both in wages and profits on their forty acres than “transatlantic” peo¬ 
ple do on their two acres? As often as I have discussed this subject of 
protective taxation I have urged as one of its chief objections, if notits 
greatest wrong, that it resulted in an unjust distribution of the earn¬ 
ings of labor, and enabled those who worked least, or not at all, to profit 
most from the labor of others. And so much at last seems to be con¬ 
ceded by the ablest advocates of the protective doctrine. In closing his 
speech on the pending bill the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania 
points to the necessity of saving “our laboring classes” from “justi¬ 
fiable discontent” by securing to them “a larger proportion of the 
j oint production of labor and capital. ’ ’ This he proposes to accompl ish 
by so increasing protective taxes on our people that they can afford to 
pay themselves more money for less work. 

In my remarks on this bill while discussing the unequal burdens im¬ 
posed by indirect and protective tariff taxes I said that estimates based 
on census statistics showed that as many as 18,000,000 of our people do 


7 


some work and are engaged in what are called in the census returns' 
g«aintul pursuits; that all that was saved by or all the surplus earnings 
of the whole went to about two millions of the eighteen, and that the 
average earnings of the other 16,000,000 did not much exceed |300 per 
annum and were consumed in the means of daily subsistence; that our 
boasted accumulations of national and individual wealth go into the 
hands of one-tenth of our people. These estimates the demure gentle¬ 
man from Massachusetts [Mr. Kussell] criticises in a manner not the 
most courteous, but of which I do not complain, for his terms of criti¬ 
cism are courtly courteous compared with the brutal coarseness and 
shuffling insincerity of the criticisms made here on the bill, its author, 
and all who favor its adoption by those who professedly favor a modi¬ 
fication and reduction of the tariff while striving to prevent such reduc¬ 
tion. 

The statement questioned by the gentleman from ISIassachusetts is 
substantially true. There are more than 4,000,000 persons engaged in 
manufacturing, mining, and mechanical industries, the hands employed 
numbering nearly 3,000,000. In the census year 1880 their average 
wages was $346. At a great public gathering last year in New York 
city, Mr. Jarrett, president of the labor organization, declared that 
• wages had been reduced 20 per cent, since the census year. The truth 
of his statement, which has not been questioned, shows annual wages 
to be $277. With reductions made in the last year, the stoppage of mills, 
and loss of time, annual wages are less than $277 for hands employed. 
Classed with those engaged in manufactures are a large number of 
miners and mechanics, whose average earnings are not much more, and 
together they do not equal $300, the amount stated by me. 

Of the 6,000,000 engaged in trade and transportation, professional and 
personal service, one-half are laborers or in domestic service, and most 
of the others are in employments where the compensation is not large. 
Taken together they are not better paid than those engaged in man¬ 
ufactures. 

Of the 8,000,000 in agriculture, the farmers outnumber farm laborers 
about 1,000,000. The estimated value of all farm products for 1880 
given in the census is $2,212,000,000. Divided equally, it leaves to 
those engaged in agriculture but $289 each. Having challenged the 
correctness of my statement as to the earnings and savings of the mass 
of the people, the gentleman from Massachusetts sustains himself by 
his own assertion that the laboring people have made large deposits in 
the savings-bank at Lowell. It may be true that such deposits have 
been made. The census shows it to be the most industrious of all our 
cities. There are none where so many women and little children toil 
all the day long. Counting all the men, women, and children, one- 
half of them are at work. 

Lowell is the great seat of the cotton industry, and the wages in 1880 
in cotton-mills was 81 cents per day. With the 20 per cent, or more 
reductions since made, the laboring peoi^le who deposit in the Lowell 
banks earn 61 cents per day; and I now again insist that those who earn 
but 61 cents per day can only make deposits, as they pay their unequal 
portion of tariff taxes, by subtracting them from their too scanty means 
of comfortable living. 

The gentleman from New York [Mr. Hiscock] in his speech only a 
few days since insisted that the value of the agricultural product for 
1880 was, in fact, $3,600,000,000, and not $2,212,000,000, as taken by 


myself and others from the census. This duscrepancy or error he claims 
is because ranche products and meat and maple sugar, &c., are not 
included in the lower census estimate. 

Mr. Dodge, of the Agricultural Bureau, seems to be the author of 
both estimates. I find a meat product valued at $303,502,413 counted 
as part of our manufacturing wealth, and it may be that neither esti¬ 
mate of the agricultural product is correct. But supposing the higher 
estimate to be true, and remembering that agricultural products, like 
labor, have decreased-in value, and allowing a low rate of interest on 
farms, the cost of fences and fertilizers, and the income of the firming 
classes falls below $268 each. I do not care to go more into details. But 
at page 300 of the Agricultural Report for 1882 there is a statement, 
made by the same JMr. Dodge, showing the income for that year of 
more than 2,000,000 farmers to be $160 each, and more than 3,000,000 
to be $261 each, thus showing the average earnings of 5,042,937 per¬ 
sons engaged in agriculture to be $220 in 1882. Of course there are 
many engaged in all these industries who earn much more than $300, 
but there are so many more of the 16,000,000 who are to-day earning 
less, that the estimate given by me is above the actual earnings. 

Remembering that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Russell] 
and the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Chace] come here session 
after session, and by vote and speech maintain tarift' taxes that money 
may be put in their purses through their protected business pursuits, 

I accept with some qualification their assurances of special care for 
and sympathy with the workers and planters in the fields of agricult¬ 
ure. From their fields they gather corn as pious men gather godliness, 
do wn on their bended knees, because the stalks are so short. [ Laughter. ] 
Ill our fields we reach the ears of corn with the help of a ladder, the 
stalks are so long. And yet these gentlemen are continually offering 
us their services in protecting our agriculture by taxing us. In oppos¬ 
ing this bill the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Findlay] only to-day 
invoked censure on the internal-revenue .system because of its horde 
of tax-gatherers. Sir, the tax-gatherers in the customs-revenue service 
outnumber the other by hundreds of thousands. Whoever buys a nail, 
a hoe, an ax, a yard of cloth, or spool of thread in all the ten thousand 
stores and shops where merchants sell their wares, meets there the 
tax-gatherer taking taxes for the Government oi bounty for the manu¬ 
facturer. 

IVIr. FINDLAY. I have never seen him there. 

INIr. MORRISON. You do not work for $300 a year or you would 
have felt him. [Laughter.] 

So much sympathy has been expressed here for men who toil in the 
field or who toil anywhere that it needs to be accepted with something 
of caution. In this I have no reference to any thing said by the gentle¬ 
man from Maryland. 

In the progress of the remarks lately made by the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. McKinley], when he was telling over the advantages of a home 
market afforded to agriculture by taxing it to support manufactures, I 
asked him what part of the agricultural product was consumed by those 
engaged in manfactures? Taking refuge in his usualadroitness, he re¬ 
plied. “ All they need.” 

With greater candor he would have replied, “Less than half as much 
as we export;’ ’ but such frankness would have exposed the home-market 
fiillacy, which is an unkept promise a century old and yet growing 


away from realizatioti. Do gentlemen who so idly talk of a home mar¬ 
ket for the products of farms and fields forget that all wheat and corn 
now grown in the country can he grown in Iowa and the adjoining Ter¬ 
ritory of Dakota? That Texas alone will grow all the field products 
now grown in al 1 the States and Territories ? Do gentlemen forget that 
all the cotton consumed in the whole world will grow in the State of 
Mississippi ? These facts are apparently overlooked by gentlemen who 
are continually promising here to tax agricultural people into a profit¬ 
able market. 

I believe I have already said- that the trouble with gentlemen who 
])rofessedly oppose this bill for making a horizontal reduction do not 
oppose it because it cuts horizontally, but because it cuts at all. 
[Langhter.] The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McKinley] finds noth¬ 
ing in the bill which commends it to him, and while commenting on its 
(to him) objectionable features avssumes to find in the bill some confes¬ 
sion of incapacity and some evidence of indolence. These are terms 
near akin to those employed by his Democratic allies and incidental con- 
I'ederates, and therefore I do not complain of his use of them. [Laugh¬ 
ter.] 

When I inquired of him whether if the form of the bill was so changed 
as to omit the features criticised by him it would then have his sup¬ 
port, he very candidly replied it would not. He had elsewhere said 
he would not vote for any bill putting anything down, but would vote 
for a bill putting duties on several articles up. When asked if any cut 
would receive his support, he declared the 20 per cent, proposed ruinous, 
because he asserted twenty inches off of a long-legged man would still 
leave him “stumps,” while a like cut would leave a short-legged man 
no stumps at all. A 1 per cent, horizontal reduction of that stumpy 
witticism will leave it the shallowest nonsense. 

The gentleman feigns ignorance of the fact that the gi’eat, oppressive, 
taxing monster stands with its unequal burdens on legs of unequal 
length. Does he forget that woolen rags and shoddy and waste wool 
and rags, not wool but mixed, used in making woolen goods are taxed 
10 cents pe^ pound? He remembers that. Does he remember that 
cloth made of the 10-cent rags is taxed a dollar a pound ? Then the 
question is not whether a horizontal cut is right or wrong as a test be¬ 
tween the gentleman and myself. This is the question: Is the tariff 
too high or too low? Is 10 cents too much on rags and a dollar too 
much on cloth? [Applause.] When I make the horizontal cut I 
leave the one at 80 and the other at 8—the same ijroportion he left to 
them. [Applause.] If they are not left in right relations the fault is 
his, not mine. 

Mr. HEED. Oh, no; you are doing the cutting. 

Mr. MORRISON. I did not put 10 cents on rags and a dollar on cloth. 

Mr. REED. But you are complaining of inequality, and yet you per¬ 
petuate it. 

Mr. MORRISON. In addition to some inequality I complain that 
duties are all too high, and in this bill I propose to make them lower. 
If I can cut ofi* the ugly tops of these things and others like them you 
Avill be the first man to come in and help me to regulate and adjust 
anv ine(iuality. [Laughter and applause.] If I can deprive you of 
your bounty, your unjust exactions secured to you under the false pre¬ 
tense of protecting labor [cries of ‘ ‘ Good ! ” ], you and the gentleman from 
Ohio will be the first men to come in and say, “Let us equalize.” That 


10 


is what all protectionists will hasten to do. There will be no trouble 
about equalizing if I can first take from you your bounties. These I 
am trying to cut off a little, leaving for the present the adjustment 
made by you and which you still insist is too perfect to be disturbed. 

On the authority of some officer in the Treasury my friend the gen¬ 
tleman from Ohio says the bill will be difficult to execute. I call him 
my friend, for that is what he called me [laughter], and I feel so nearly 
that, that 1 am not going to vote to put him out of his seat unless there is 
a good case against him, for he is one of the best of his kind. [Laughter 
and applause. ] But somebody, an officer in the Treasury, told him that 
the bill had in it absurdities and would be expensive to administer and 
execute. Who this officer maybe is a protective secret which the gen¬ 
tleman will not disclose. I suppose there is such an officer, because the 
gentleman from Ohio has said so. If there is, he is doubtless the same 
description of person as the president of the Tariff Commission, of whom 
^Ir. Delano, the ex-Secretary of the Interior, said- 

Mr. BLACKBURN. Columbus Delano? 

Mr. MORRISON. Yes; once a member of General Grant’s Cabinet, 
and before that a member of this House. He said of the Tariff Com¬ 
mission that after it was gotten up by the manufacturers they took their 
hired agent and made him president of it; I suppose to give them an 
impartial report. I suppose the officer who imparted the information 
mentioned by the gentleman from Ohio is not unlike the president of 
the Tariff Commission in his relations to the manufacturers, whose hired 
agent he probably is. One of the absurdities which he thinks he dis¬ 
covers in the bill is the proposed cut of iron ore, which would reduce 
it to 60 cents, and under the Morrill tariff it was 20 per cent, ad valo¬ 
rem; that it might fall so low or go so high in price it would be diffi¬ 
cult to tell on which side of the ad valorem line it was dutiable, and 
confusion would result. 

Remembering that we have collected duty on ore under the ad valorem 
rate always before the present law, why need we be confused about it. 
The confusion is all in the reduction. He fears confusion from the rates 
on files, rasps, floats, &c. A great many hard-working carpenters have 
been filed and rasped by this tariff. [Laughter. ] The duties on these 
he finds uncertain, because under the Morrill tariff the duty was 30 per 
cent, on the value. Under the present law it is by the dozen. Under 
the old law it was by the pound. The changes heretofore made created 
no confusion except to those who pay the high existing rates. The pro¬ 
posed reduction is the only inconsistency which pinches the friends of 
the file-makers. 

Out of one of the rates fixed or clauses made in the last tariff bill 
by the gentleman from Ohio and his associates, experts w ho have made 
all the tariffs since 1860,1 am told 15,000 protests have already come 
and 15,000 lawsuits may follow. So it woul d appear that there is som e- 
thing defective, more or less imperfect, in all tariff bills. And dread 
confusion haunts the gentleman from Ohio because the duty on grind¬ 
stones is to be lowered. He came confused from yonder conference- 
room, where he was a member of the conference committee, to the con¬ 
fusion of all tax-payers. The office and duty of a conference is to ad¬ 
just the difference between the two disagreeing Houses. This House 
had decided that bar-iron of the middle class was to pay $20 a ton; 
the Senate that it was to pay $20.16 a ton. The gentlemen of the 
conference, including the gentleman from Ohio, reconciled this differ- 



11 


ence—liow? By raising bar-iron above both House and Senate to 
$22.40 a ton. [Great laughter. ] 

The Tariff Commission at the end of its deliberations reported that 
the tariff on iron ore should be 50 cents a ton. The Senate said that it 
should be 50 cents a ton. The House said it should be 50 cents a ton. 
Gentlemen of the conference committee, including the gentleman from 
Ohio, neither indolent nor wanting in capacity of a kind, reconciled the 
agreement of the House, Senate, and Tariff Commission into a disagree¬ 
ment, y^here there was none, and made the duty on ore 75 cents a ton. 

, [Laughter and applause on the Democratic side. ] 

The gentlemen of the conference did a similar service for the great cor¬ 
poration of corporations, the Iron and Steel Association, by giving it a 
tax of $17 on steel rails, which the House fixed at $15 and the Senate 
at $15.68 per ton. In all this there is no confession of want of capacity, 
but an exhibition of it which commends itself to the gentleman from 
Ohio. It is such an exhibition of talent and special fitness as in Ohio 
would be a breach of public trust and drive him from an honorable pro¬ 
fession. Here it is statesmanship. It gives bounty to corporations and 
royalty to mine-owners. [Laughter. ] It adds to the burdens of the 
people, who are mocked with the pretense that it protects labor. The 
more of such evidences of capacity as were exhibited in that conference, 
of which the gentleman from Ohio was a distinguished member, that 
might be shown in this horizontal bill, the more infamous it would be 
and the less support it ought to have. [Laughter and applause.] 

Some right-thinking merchant in Boston, anxious to commend his 
wares with a good name, has given out that they are of the “ Carlisle 
shape.” The gentleman from Ohio discovers in this an aspiration for 
the reduction of war-tariff taxes, and so he will have none of the Carlisle 
shape. He longs for the Keifer shape. [Laughter and applause.] 
Let him take comfort in the fact that his allies about me who are striv¬ 
ing to defeat this bill, and with it all legislation necessary to relieve the 
people from unnecessary taxes, are speeding the return of the Keifer 
shape. 

These gentlemen who come here from Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan 
pledged to abate something from taxes taken from the people to go into 
a treasury already full come as the representatives of a people who be¬ 
lieve the Tariff Commission scheme was a sham and a cheat, devised to 
maintain and not to reduce taxes. And now they are here, and the chief 
. financial ofiicer of the Government tells them (whether it is a cheat or 
’ not) that this scheme has not reduced taxes as it was promised they 
should be reduced—as all advocates of the commission plan promised 
they should be reduced. 

If the gentlemen from these States must return to their constituents 
with their pledges unredeemed and promises unkept—unkept not be¬ 
cause of the votes of the gentlemen from Ohio and his party associates, 
but because of the votes of their Democratic allies—what answer shall 
they make to the people, who had their assurances that with the help 
of their own party associates here they would give to the people that 
relief which had hitherto been first promised, then denied ? Must they 
return with faith unkept by reason oi the action of their own party 
associates, who are always professing a willingness to grant relief, which 
when they have the power to grant they take care to refuse? Is this to 
be the result? 

The CHAIRMAN. The time fixed for debate has expired. 


Mr. MONEY. I move that the gentleman from Illinois be allowed 
to proceed. 

Mr. KASSON. The gentleman from Illinois has not occupied the 
time to which he was entitled, having yielded to me a portion of it. 
[Cries of “ Go on!”] 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois yielded six minutes 
to the gentleman from Iowa. If there be no objection the Chair will 
recognize him for that time. 

There was no objection. 

Mr. MORRISON. With such a result of course the Keifer shape will 
return to comfort Ohio statesmen. But will the gentlemen already 
referred to return or will they be considered unfaithful because their 
Democratic associates have been so ? Then those by whose votes on this 
bill all reduction of taxes shall be postponed will be further comforted 
with the return here of the genial Governor Pound, who weighs a ton 
for many purposes. [Laughter. ] The gentle Hazel ton, and the ami¬ 
able gentleman from New Jersey, ]\Ir. Robeson, may be here again. 
Probably the budding statesman from California may give place to jolly 
Mr. Page. 

Mr. WILLIS. And besides that ‘ ‘ My dear Hubbell. ’ ’ [Laughter. ] 

Mr. MORRISON. Yes; my dear Hubbell and my Ohio friend and 
all his Democratic allies here will be made happy in the assurance that 
all the ‘ ‘ industries ’ ’ are safe in the hands of men of ‘ ‘ capacity. ’ ’ 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Randall], who does not 
honor me with his presence- 

Mr. RANDALL. That is a mistake. 

Mr. MORRISON. I am glad to know the gentleman is here. He too 
was once in favor, or professed to be in favor, of a substantial reduction 
of high tariff taxes; said so in a speech to the convention which nomi¬ 
nated him as a candidate for the place he holds in this Congress, if the 
Evening Telegram and his own city papers correctly report him. It is 
true that since then the commission scheme of revision procured by his 
assistance has been made, but I think it is substantially conceded by 
all that this is not such a revision as was promised by him and his as¬ 
sociate advocates of that measure, for they promised relief which it 
did not afford and which is still refused. 

The gentleman with his associates in that work reduced the tax on 
silks from 60 per cent, to 50 per cent, or 16 per cent. On the cheaper 
woolen goods, some of them taxed as high as 100 per cent., he voted 
with other revisers and tariff adjusters to add another 30 per cent. I 
ask him now to help me to reduce this onerous tax that was already 
too high, and his answer is, not that it is nottoohigh—he does not say 
that—but he says he does not like the horizontal cut. Then why does 
he not offer a proper plan—another cut ? He claims to have the power 
to strike out the enacting clause of this bill and thereby defeat any leg¬ 
islation. If he and his Democratic adherents have the power to do that 
they have the power to amend the bill and make it what they desire it 
to be. [Applause.] 

But this is not a horizontal cut. It removes part of the monstrous 
tax put by him on woolen and other goods, but leaves silks taxed as he 
taxed them. I do not propose an indiscriminate reduction. When 20 
per cent, is taken off, those now as high as 100 per cent, will still be 
80 per cent. Another provision of the bill reduces them to 60 per 
cent. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the Democrats who 



13 


act with him think 60 per cent, on woolen goods too low ? In God’s 
name how mnch would you take as bounty for those for wliom you 
have spokeu here to-day? Do you know there are a million women 
to-day in this country earning with their needles dresses made of goods 
thus highly taxed, and that when they buy ten yards for a dress, even 
with this second cut, they must give the price of six to the Govern¬ 
ment ? Is tliat not enough ? 

Gentlemen but deceive themselves if in voting against a bill open to 
amendment they expect to avoid responsibility with a pretense that it 
is objectionable in form or in detail. The pretense that the advocates 
of this bill or any bill reducing tariff taxes would resort to direct taxa¬ 
tion is a meaningless subterfuge. The assertion that the friends of tariff 
reform would abandon tariff taxes as a principal source of revenue is a 
weak invention of those who would hide their own rightly distrusted 
purposes and evasions of public duty. 

But there is the horizontal cut into the bounty-fed Congressional 
favorites, and therefore I can not have the assistance of these gentle¬ 
men even to amend the bill or to legislate upon the subject of taxation 
because for the purposes of those by whom it is opposed it cuts wrong 
in cutting at all. And yet most of them (I believe the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania does not) pretend to believe taxes too high, and assume 
a willingness to reduce them, while voting to prevent all reduction. 

[Here the hammer fell, and Mr. Mokrison resumed his seat amid 
loud applause.] 

The following tables were presented to the Statistical Society of Great 
Britain by its president, Kobert Giffen, LL. D., November 20, 1883: 


Comparison of wages fifty years ago and at the present time. 

[From miscellaneous statistics of the United Kingdom and Porter’s Progress 

of the Nation.] 


Occupation. 


Carpenters. 

Carpenters. 

Bricklayers. 

Bricklayers. 

Masons. 

Masons. 

Miners . 

Pattern-weavers.. 

Wool-scourers. 

Mule-spinners. 

Weavers. 

Warpers and beamers 
Winders and reelcrs... 

Weavers (men)... 

Reeling and warping.. 
Spinning (children)...., 


Place. 

Wages per week. 

Increase. 

Fifty years 
ago. 

Present 

time. 

Amount. 

Per cent. 


£. s. 

d. 

£. s. 

d. 

s. d. 


Manchester... 

1 4 

0 

1 14 

0 

10 0 

42 

Glasgow. 

14 

0 

1 6 

0 

12 0 

85 

Manchester a.. 

1 4 

0 

1 16 

0 

12 0 

50 

GlasgoAV. 

15 

0 

1 7 

0 

12 0 

80 

'Manchester a.. 

1 4 

0 

1 9 

10 

5 10 

24 

Glasgow. 

14 

0 

1 3 

8 

9 8 

69 

Staffordshire. 

62 

8 

64 

0 

1 4 

50 

Huddersfield. 

16 

0 

1 5 

0 

9 0 

55 

Huddersfield. 

17 

0 

1 2 

0 

5 0 

30 

Huddersfield. 

1 5 

6 

1 10 

0 

4 6 

20 

Huddersfield. 

12 

0 

1 6 

0 

14 0 

115 

Huddersfield. 

17 

0 

1 7 

0 

10 0 

58 

Huddersfield. 

6 

0 

11 

0 

5 0 

83 

Bradford. 

8 

3 

1 6 

0 

12 3 

150 

Bradford. 

7 

9 

15 

6 

7 9 

100 

Bradford. 

4 

5 

11 

6 

7 1 

160 


a 1825. 


6 Wfcges per day. 




































14 


Comparison of seamen's money-wages per month 1850 and the present time. 

[From the Progress of Merchant Shipping Returns.] 


- 

1850 — sail¬ 
ing. 

P resent 
time — 
steam. 

Increase. 

Amount. 

Per cent. 


£ s. 

d. 

£ s. 

d. 

£ s. 

d. 


Bristol. 

2 5 

0 

3 15 

0 

1 10 

0 

66 

Glasgow. 

2 5 

0 

3 10 

0 

1 5 

0 

55 

Liverpool (1) . 

2 10 

0 

3 7 

6 

16 

6 

33 

Liverpool (2). 

2 10 

0 

4 5 

0 

1 15 

0 

70 

Liverpool (3) . 

2 5 

0 

3 0 

0 

15 

0 

33 

Liverpool (4). 

2 00 

0 

2 10 

0 

10 

0 

25 

Liverpool (5). 

2 2 

6 

3 00 

0 

17 

6 

40 

London (1) . 

2 5 

0 

3 15 

0 

1 10 

0 

66 

London (2). 

2 10 

0 

3 17 

ft 

1 7 

6 

55 

London (3). 

2 5 

0 

3 5 

0 

1 00 

0 

45 

London (4) . 

2 5 

0 

3 10 

0 

1 5 

0 

55 

London (5). 

2 00 

0 

3 7 

6 

1 7 

6 

69 

London (6). 

2 00 

0 

3 7 

6 

1 7 

6 

69 


Paupers in receipt of relief in the years given below. 



1.S49. 

1881. 

England. 

Scotland. 

Ireland. 

United Kingdom. 

934,000 

0 122,000 
620, tKX) 

803,000 

102,000 

109,000 

1,676,000 

1,014,000 


a 1859. 

Average attendance at schools aided by parliamentary grants. 



1851. 

1881. 

England. 

239,000 
32,000 

2,863,000 
410,000 

Scotland. 



O 

















































I? 


r « 

V V 


■■n 


■ ■! ■ • • % . . . >!«. .'r ’Lj#:. 

■ ..'.•■'‘Vf^: 'v^'.;. Vi*. r' ■■ •'m' ^ ARi/w ^ I.5> 

!'_' i‘\. ■ -MKHi * ttitm • ' ^ i. * . ^ ^ p r. P • i . ,4 




*’ ^ i • 

'S , ■'a 

W--'f / • 



»v • p; ■ 'in 

yV-^ 'r* 


r" f-. ' ' ■ . r.. ;;• -■' . r! 






. • 
fcM . 





f • 




■ V J,,.U !' ** # -^‘A .r'.‘ ‘ . ST']- ‘./Mfi. ., w" .> 


■;> 


v-.iA.,,; ^ 

-■ 1 ' 4 l pl-1? 


• .v- 


# J» •/ , 

f> f 




♦ . > 






■ 


V 

V '.v •■ •V' • • H- 


;r* •' 


, I.* 


>♦ .■ 


A/. 


/ 





■ * V 




jB-l'iC’ .^ 

' .'■ 

■ ;).'..;,.V-J..,..- , - 

. Vv’A- ■ ■;■■:■■;/ ■' 

'■'■’■’V/ '. ./ ■ aK 4 .- ,. 


•■;4 


t 


i.' 



j» «. 


-‘■•V '• 


I » 

'/.I '•’ C. 

*4 / f ' 


rr 5 * * / 




- ▼ -1 ., 






K 






^*'7^4.351 ■■■Vfi 

*■5 :*.. ti.l 












- V. : .’■ ' .WwJ ,; 'iff 


♦♦’ll 


7^ 



' -’ 1 ‘ •? *• 

' ■ • ? • '^ * ^•. -*'r A. 1 ‘fc 

■ ' -4 \ ■ • v;-, ;, 

’ • ».*i s * i. v.g^^ • ’ i ‘A • 

•'.'. i A ‘’‘ ‘. JL ’ VfiiS'.v' ••'' 

•,.; ' • ' >'. i.' ;-. 

V • • * . , . k ^ 



‘tf « 


: .',-aj 


# « ' *1 




•w 


pfc:"r,, 

^, ■ f •' •1/'. ' M 






'r* » 


• • f 





- 4 . ) „v 


.»• .V; 


. % 


<n V, I > 






.r. 




'V' « ■% r L 

‘.f, > ^ • .* .^'1 


^ ‘ t 


■* ■ •' ' '■•■'■•' 5 'Tv ' •’. ^ 

’, A,-■ •" 


7 ^^ 



•''!i 

•t ■■ -M 


. », 


. ^ .1 

'-« M. '■ 



'•MH) 


i^-'cV '^ ■'■ ' '.'• . v '" v‘: 4 .\i' . 

,4V'M '” ' ■ .*/ ■ V-.;', ;■•' 






■ • A 


. 


/. A-’ ‘ ■■■ ■ ^ 


M' 


t f f 


I. 


Jl -i 


‘ ^ 


r* 4 


• .1 



'I >v V,,' , ' ,:. 
b ;:;i'' -V '•':Ki:VA ,, 


V >■• /■»! '»? •.■" .A 

> ^-Avur - » 4 * 

■•• V. ' ■ r ■>'-'' 

Vi! A.i 


, •, t*' ■ . ‘ 




^f ' 

•p I 

.• 


M p 


■ •1 


'Jil • . ' ■'. '. ,v .-V 'o'.s'T ;>; 













»u 


'S* /.I M' 








“War tariff taxes should be repealed because without yieldin§f 
revenue they increase the burdens of the people.” 


THE TARIFF. 


SPEECH 


OF 

HON. WILLIAM R. MORRISON, 

• 0 * 

OF ILLIIN-QIS, 


IN THE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


Tuesday, April 15, 1884. 


“Of all the false pretenses with which protection moob iU Tiottma, tlM aaoBty 
tion that labor is helped or protected by taxing its earnings is the flinulasl** 


WASHINGTON 

1884 . 






% 





4 

j «. ^ • / - 


I 


k 


I 

» 


t 


! 


A 


t 


/ 


P 

* 

I 

» 

1 

? 

r 

I 

( 

ft- 


>i 


» 


I 


t 


I 




I, 


/ 


« 




t 

* 




« 


», ' 


4 


I 




/ 


« 




* 



I 

/ 


/ 


SPEECH 


OF* 

HON. WILLIAM K. MOREISON. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5893) to reduce import duties 
and war-tariff taxes— 

Mr. MORRISON said: 

Mr. Chairman: Information comes to ns from the executive branch 
of the Grovernment that the people are bnrdened with unnecessary taxes 
and contribute annually large sums to the public Treasury not necessary 
for public uses. The majority of the House is justly held responsible 
both for its legislation and its neglect to legislate. The fact that our 
customs or tariff revenue is not limited to the necessities of the Govern¬ 
ment is, so far as I know, not questioned by any memberof the majority 
here where bills to reduce as well as to raise revenue must originate. 
While taxation is admitted by all to be excessive, the extent to which 
its burdens are imposed directly and indirectly in excess of the re¬ 
quirements of the Government is the subject of much diversity of opin¬ 
ion. The amount of annual surplus is dependent upon the speed with 
which we pay the public debt. 

The Treasury estimate of expenditure, including such annual payment 
on the public debt as is enjoined by the law under which the debt was 
made, is for the current year $40,000,000, and for next year $60,000,000 
less than the estimated revenues on the basis of existing laws. The 
Treasury estimate of annual surplus may, therefore, be fairly stated 
at $50,000,000. Of this needless taxation and surplus with their at¬ 
tendant aggravated evils we can not fail to relieve the people without 
flagrant disregard of public duty. 

REDUCTION OF TAXES ONLY REFORM PRACTICABLE. 

It is not claimed that the bill reported by the committee will afford 
all the relief demanded of the people’s representatives. It is but an 
advance toward and a promise of more complete revenue reform, to at¬ 
tain which a general revision of the tariff and a more equitable adjust¬ 
ment of rates on its long list of dutiable articles is essential. Such a 
revision and adjustment was believed to be unattainable at the present 
session of Congress. A bill was therefore reported having for its chief 
purpose the reduction of taxes. It will create no surprise that in the 
opinion of the minority members of the committee the bill is not suffi¬ 
ciently harmonious in its relations to be approved by them or by pro¬ 
tectionists generally. They find in it no merit because, as they allege, 
it proposes to reduce duties “alike,” and without regard to particular 
industries. To protectionists any measure is without harmony and 
without merit which deprives their favorites of any bounty, though such 
measure but responds to the statement of the fiscal officer of the Gov- 





4 


eminent that, “The question still presses, what legislation is necessary 
to relieve the people of unnecessary taxes? ” 

It would be only just to correct the inequalities in the present law by 
an increased tax or duty on wool, tin-plates, cotton-ties and wire-rods, 
say our opponents who find neither harmony nor merit in a tax bill 
which only reduces taxes. 

HORIZONTAL EEDtrCnON. 

A reduction “alike” or horizontal is not the most logical or best, but 
none other was practicable. Protectionists oppose it not because it is 
to them illogical in its method of reduction, but because it is a reduction 
at aU. The late revision, after leaving the hands of the manufacturers 
and their Tariff Commission, was completed in conference, of which 
three leading members were Messrs. Moeeill, Kelley, and Sheeman, 
who have made all the tariffs of the last 25 years. They are the chief 
architects of the present system, and it will not be lightly said by the 
friends of the system that the revision as it came from such hands was 
not consistent and harmonious. They laid some duties as low as 10, 
others as high as 100 per cent, and higher. These are to be reduced 20 
per cent., or to 8 and 80. Relatively they remain the same. To the 
people they will be a little lighter. 

This horizontal or equal method is not new. In 1872 it was adopted 
to reduce and in 1875 again to increase the tariff—this too by those who 
now find in it no merit. 

Once deprive the system of its enormous bounties and the right ad¬ 
justment of rates will be a matter of easy accomplishment. 

TAXES WILL BE MORE REDUCED THAN REVENUE. 

Gentlemen are disturbed lest revenues will increase under the bill. 
Professedly they are alarmed at the possibility of taking less of the peo¬ 
ple’s earnings while putting more money in the people’s Treasury. The 
enactment of a law that would accomplish this should not be classed 
among national calamities. 

The bill will decrease the revenue and lessen the burden of taxation 
in largely increased proportion. 

There are now but few duties which do not much exceed revenue 
rates. Except as to these the reduced duties will leave our own prod¬ 
ucts above the level of fair competition, and our own people will in the 
future, as always in the past, supply their own wants by their own 
matchless skill. The year 1860 was a time of plenty. With a tariff 
too low for revenue—lower by one-half than that we now offer to mod¬ 
ify—we had in fourteen years less than two of adversity, more than 
twelve of wonderful process. The laborer for wages was at least as 
well and the grower of grain better paid than they are in this year 1884, 
and in that year, 1860, of bounteous plenty our importations of foreign 
goods were less to the person, or in proportion to population, than in 
the years 1880-1882. (I.) 

FREE SALT, COAL, AND LUMBER. 

To the list of articles now imported free of duty, amounting to nearly 
one-third of all our importations, it is proposed to add salt, ooal, wood 
and lumber. Salt is already freed from tax for fishermen, also for the 
exiiorter of meats, to lessen the cost of food to the people of other 
countries, not for our own; coal is untaxed for use on vessels having by 
law the exclusive right to the coasting trade, or engaged in the foreign 
carrying trade—a privilege denied to persons engag^ in other pursuits. 
Such privileges and exemptions should not be confined to the few, but 


5 


extended to all. It is now more than twelve years since the protec¬ 
tionists themselves, the late President Garfield among them, passed a 
bill in the House placing coal and salt on the free list. Since then they 
have done nothing which so much commended them to the people. 

The revenue from wood and lumber imported and hereafter to be ad¬ 
mitted free of duty has in the ten years last past not much exceeded 
$10,000,000, or $1,000,000 per annum. The census returns show the 
domestic wooden products to exceed $500,000,000 per annum. If the 
average duty of 20 per cent, on theimported wood adds but 10 percent, 
to the price of that produced here, its increased cost to the people has 
been $50,000,000 per annum, or $500,000,000 in the ten years. In these 
ten years, under pretense of taxing this article to secure $10,000,000 of 
revenue, we have compelled the people to pay $500,000,000 in bounty to 
encourage the destruction of forests and the felling of trees; and in the 
same time we have given more than 18,000,000 acres of land under the 
timber-culture act as bounty to encourage the planting of other trees 
and other forests. 

HIDDEN AND CONCEALED ENORMITIES OP PRESENT LAW. 

In'the estimates made by Mr. Evans, a clerk of experience in the 
Bureau of Statistics, which actual payments on importations show to 
be but estimates though based on official data, it appears the bill would 
leave in the cottons but two articles—of cotton yarns, not the finest—du¬ 
tiable above 40 per cent.; in woolens but one coarse carpet wool, which 
we do not produce, above 60 per-cent., and in iron and steel but few 
above 50 per cent. These rates have been fixed as the limit above which 
on these articles no duty shall be collected. The present rate on the 
finest cotton is 40 per cent., and yet it is an unquestioned fact, as shown 
by invoices and payments made, that duties exceeding 100 per cent, 
(exceeding the first cost) are exacted and paid on cotton goods the duty 
upon which is, in the estimates referred to, stated to be less than 20 
per cent. The same is true of iron and steel in different degrees. In 
the woolen schedule these abuses are most glaring. In all they result 
from enormities hidden and concealed both in classification of articles 
and rates of duty. The limit of 40, 50, and 60 per cent, on the cotton, 
metal, and woolen schedules is intended to expose and remedy these 
hidden enormities. 

There are those who assume the virtue of a willingness to abate some¬ 
thing from custom-house taxes, and aspire to be counted revenue re¬ 
formers, but do not find in this measure the relief demanded by them. 
Those really desirous of affording some relief from existing abuses wiU 
not fail to find their opportunity in removing taxes yeliding $8,000,000 
on sugar, as much on cotton and woolen goods, and $14,000,000 on 
other articles used in every home. 

MORRILL TARIFF AND WAR INCREASE. 

In March, 1861, the tariff of previous years, sometimes named in con¬ 
tradictory terms a “ free-trade tarift’,” gave place to the Morrill tariff, 
which the House had passed early in 1860, and which its author at the 
time said ‘ ‘ would place our people on a level of fair competition with 
the rest of the world. ” Goods which were imported under this tariff' 
act of March, 1861, for $100 must pay to-day $155; an increase resulting 
from war rates and additions under various pretexts still remains aver¬ 
aging 55 per cent, of the former duty and on many articles double as 
much. The reductions proposed are so limited as never to place our 
people below but to leave them far above the level of fair competition 


6 


on which the Morrill tariff placed them. This is proposed in the hope 
that there might be no division among the people’s representatives on 
the “question” which “still presses what legislation is necessary to 
relieve the people from unnecessary taxes. ’ ’ 

Duties sufficient for protection in 1861 ought to be more than suffi¬ 
cient after twenty-five years. It is a cardinal faith of the protectionist, 
so far as he has any faith not measured in dollars and cents, that pro¬ 
tection cheapens production, strengthens productive power, and fits its 
favorites for less dependence upon the bounty of the Government. Why, 
then, may we not expect to have their co-operation in a reduction of 
taxes so moderate? And shall we not have the co-operation of their 
incidental allies? Or must they make up in works what they lack in 
faith, and still give and give to the miserable system dying of its own 
excesses? 

LATE REVISION ONLY REDtTCTION IN NAME. 

In executive communications, and in the rei)ort which I had the 
honor to make on behalf of the committee, it has been already shown 
that the executive branch of the Government, its fiscal officer or depart¬ 
ment, the Tariff Commission, and the people were during the last Con¬ 
gress in entire accord as to the necessity of a substantial reduction of 
tariff taxes, and that all the agencies charged with that duty have 
failed to do more than make a reduction in name, not in fact. In other 
words, all the agencies chosen to revise and reduce the tariff, including 
the two Houses of Congress, have been deceived themselves, and for a 
time deceived the people, into the belief that they had been relieved from 
the payment of unnecessary taxes they are yet compelled to pay. 

The official statement appended (II) shows that the average cost of 
importing goods valued at $100 was only $1.74 less under the new than 
under the old law, and that the average cost or duty under the new 
law is 41 (40.91) per cent. 

It is also shown that the late revision and alleged reduction of duties 
has not been followed by increased but by reduced importations result¬ 
ing in less revenue; that the largely increased protective rates made in 
some branches of all leading industries have not been followed by in¬ 
creased compensation to the workers in these industries, but the reduc¬ 
tion of wages begun before the revision has been continued and often 
followed by further reductions; and that our manufacturing capacity 
exceeds the wants of our own people, resulting in lower wages, loss of 
employment, enforced idleness, suffering, and misfortune. 

This is the protective scheme we are asked to let alone, beeause we 
are told the country wants relief from Congressional agitation. 

AGITATION. 

The insufficient not to say deceptive character of the late revision, the 
manner of making it, and the circumstances attending its adoption alike 
forbid that it should be permanent. When it was being forced upon the 
country with assumptions and assurances which have not been verified, I 
warned its authors it would give no contentment to the public mind and 
no rest from agitation, because it did not afford the relief admitted to be 
a measure of justice Toy the commission packed to perpetuate existing 
abuses. I said then that its authoi-s in and out of Congress but deceived 
themselves if they expected from this measure so much as a temporary 
settlement. 

In a speech made m January last at Columbus, Ohio, Hon. Columbus 
Delano, a protectionfst, long a member of Congress and member of Presi- 


7 


dent Grant’s Cabinet, said snbstantially, that of his own personal knowl* 
edge the Tariff Commission was secnred by the manufacturers whose sal¬ 
aried agent they caused to be made its president and as their agent here, 
after his and his employers’ commission had made its report (his own re- 
I)ort) he secured many changes in it greatly to the advantage of manu¬ 
facturers. I hardly need to say that a revision procured through such 
agencies and methods is entitl^ to no respect whatever. 

It is correctly said that a tariff too low necessitates change to obtain 
needed revenue. It is equally true when too high, as ours now is, 
change is necessary to avoid a surplus from imports on which the duty 
is not prohibitory. The only security from agitation and change, there¬ 
fore, is to confine the taxing power to its rightful purpose of obtaining 
revenue limited to the necessities of the Government. When no more 
revenue is needed by the Government of the people, it has attained the 
limit of ite power to tax the people. 

PBOPKBTY SHOULD PAY THE TAXES. 

It is now nearly 8 years since I first said here: 

Burdens of Government should be borne in proportion to ability to bear them- 
Property should pay the taxes. He who has much should pay much; he who 
has little should pay little; and he who has none, none. 

And later— 

Legrislation which helps an unjust distribution of property, or an unfair di¬ 
vision of the proceeds of labor, is a great public wrong. 

And it is just because of this great public wrong that burdens are 
unequal which are laid upon the necessities and comforts of human 
existence. The First Congress, pressed by the needs of a nation griev¬ 
ously in debt, with an empty treasury, departed from this most just 
rule of equal taxation and resorted to the indirect method of obtaining 
revenue. This was justified at the time upon the assumption that an 
impost on trade was a tax in proportion to ability to pay it, because it 
was claimed that consumption was generally proportioned to the cir¬ 
cumstances of individuals. This assumption has not been verified in 
our experience. It was in fact never true. W’ith the then conditions 
and habits of our people it may be the evil effects of the plan were not ap¬ 
parent. Subsequent history not only shows its monstrous injustice but 
its baneful results. Some of these are to be found in the fact that this 
method of obtaining revenue so increasing the cost of living consumes 
all the earnings of a great majority of the people in the struggle for 
existence. 

UNEQUAL BUEDBNS OF TARIFF TAXES. 

Estimates based on the census statistics show that as many as 18,000,- 
000 of our people do some work or are occupied in some business; that 
the average earnings of at least 16,000,000 of these do not much exceed 
$300 and are wholly consumed in means of daily subsistence. These, 
too, are the millions who in shop and field strike the blows of all produc¬ 
tion. All the accumulations of and boasted additions to our national 
and individual wealth go to one-tenth ofthose who earn it; and of these 
but few indeed appropriate the great mass of the savings of the people 
and are enriched by the profits of the labor of other men. 

Like estimates will show that the few who profit most from the labor 
of aU contribute little under this system of unequal taxation, not more 
than 2 per cent, of their savings, while the great mass of workers, in¬ 
cluding the dependent poor, pay the bulk of taxes, all of which is sub¬ 
tracted from the too scanty means of comfortable living. 


8 


This indirect method of obtaining revenue came early into use among 
those who had not only pledged but expended their fortunes for the 
right to establish commerce. Once established, they taxed it, for the 
best of reasons—they had nothing else to tax. They were impartial, 
too, in their exactions. Manuiactures, as well as tea, coffee, and spic^, 
articles produced and those not produced here, were made to contrib¬ 
ute. Then as now the country’s commerce was largely with England, 
whose king had caused the substance of the people to be eaten out. 
Tax-paying was not a favorite employment at that time, though the 
taxes on manufactures were but one-fifth of what we now pay. Light m 
they were, it may be they were yet lighter when it was declared, as it 
was, that their food and clothing, including tea, coffee, and spices, not 
grown here, were taxed for the encouragement and protection of man¬ 
ufactures, for had not our commerce been cut off by England, against 
whom manufactures were to be encouraged and protected ? 

KEVENTXE TARIFF—FREE TRADE. * 

To get away from impost taxes is to us practically impossible. Cer¬ 
tainly I do not expect the people to abolish a revenue system to which 
they have been so long accustomed. I do expect to confine it to its 
rightful purpose and correct its abuses. Need I repeat that when the 
Government has taken from the people all that it needs for the cost of 
frugal administration, then the hand of the tax-gatherer must be 
staid. In such a limit to the right to lay taxes the protectionist, find¬ 
ing himself no longer pensioned on the industries of the country more 
or less prosperous than his own, will discover free trade. Ours is a 
very free country of very free men, both very freely taxed. In the 
same sense that we are free men in a free country freely taxed, we may 
be correctly named free-traders when we insist that the trade and com¬ 
merce of the country and the necessities of comfortable living shall be 
freed from all taxes not essential to the Government for public uses. 

INTERN Ali-REVEirCE, 

The amount required from customs is dependent upon what may be 
received from internal revenue. The abolition of internal revenue 
means free and cheaper liquors but heavier taxed and higher priced 
sugar and other articles essential in every household. I am not called 
upon to defend the system, which has many abuses. Of the two sys¬ 
tems it is the cheaper in administration, immensely cheaper in its 
results. The spies and informers complained of are common to both. 
So offensive is the impost that gentlewomen are required for its exe¬ 
cution in part. The repeal of internal revenue means more than addi¬ 
tional cost of living and greater privation to the poor; it means a per¬ 
manent public debt which few own and many pay and which corrupts 
administration. The earlier statesmen described it as a moral canker 
and dangerous to good government. 

While we cannot doubt the existence of great wrongs in the execu¬ 
tion of internal-revenue laws, especially in the South Atlantic States, 
many of these may be cured. Neither is it because of these abuses of 
administration that the abolition of the liquor and tobacco taxes is de¬ 
manded in the States far north and substantially free from these fla¬ 
grant abuses of administration. 

Mr. Jefferson has been summoned here as often as four times in a sin¬ 
gle day and made to bear testimony to the “infernal” character of a 
tax on whisky. 


D 


It was Mr. Jefferson who said: 

Public debt is a moral canker from which we ought to emancipate posterity. 

It was Mr. Jefferson who said: 

Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation are the most thriving 
when left most free to individual enterprise. Protection from casual embarrass* 
ments, however, may sometimes be reasonably interposed. 

It was Mr. Jefferson who said: 

Foreign spirits, wines, teas, eotfee, cigars, salt are articles of as innocent con¬ 
sumption as broadcloth and silks, and ought, like them, to pay but the average 
ad valorem duty of other imported comforts. All of them are ingredients in our 
happiness, and the government which steps out of the ranks of the ordinary ar¬ 
ticles of consumption to select and lay under disproportionate burdens a par¬ 
ticular one, because it is a comfort, pleasing to the taste, or necessary to health, 
and will therefore be bought, is in that particular a tyranny. 

It was Mr. Jefferson who said: 

Taxes on consumption, like those on capital or income, to be just must be uni¬ 
form. 

It was Mr. Jefferson who said: 

I do not mean to say that it may not be for the general interest to foster for a 
while certain infant manufactures until they are strong enough to stand against 
foreign rivals; but when evident that they will never do so, it is against right 
to make the other branches of industry support them. 

It was Mr.^Jefferson who said: 

R When it is found that France could not make sugar under 6 francs (hi a 
pound, w^ it not tyranny to restrain her citizens from importing at 1 franc (h), 
or would it not have been so to have laid a duty of 5 francs (h) on the imported ? 
The permitting an exchange of industries with other nations is a direct encour¬ 
agement of your own, which without that would bring you nothing for your 
comfort, and would of course cease to be produced. 

“It is a little singular that Mr. Jefferson should be so often summoned 
here by the friends of the bounty system to tell us so little when he 
knew so much. He was not made to bear witness to the moral canker 
and corrupting influence of a public debt, or that all industries are most 
thriving when left most I’ree to individual enterprise; that taxes on con¬ 
sumption to be just must be uniform; that protection is only justifi¬ 
able “to foster for awhile certain infant manufactures until they are 
strong enough to stand against foreign rivals, but when evident that 
they will never be so, it is against right to make the other branches of 
industry support them. ’ ’ Why was he not permitted to tell the whole 
truth? 

Macaulay says: 

There is a certain class of men who,*while they profess to hold in reverence 
the gp-eat names and great actions of former times, never look at them for any 
other purpose than in order to find in them some excuse for existing abuses. 
In every venerable precedent they pass by what is essential and take only what 
Is accidental; they keep out of sight what is beneficial and hold up to public 
imitation all that is defective. 

ABUSES, TO CONTINUE WHICH INTERNAL-REVENUE IS TO BE REPEALED. 

What are some of the existing abuses for which some excuse is to be 
found in prolessed reverence for the great name and great actions of 
Jefferson? In the first six months under the new tariff 36,000,000 
yards of woolen goods for women’s and children’s clothing were imported, 
and upon every |100 worth (at first cost) $68.32 was paid in duty. 
Under the old law the duty would have been $68.74—42 cents more. 

While this abuse continues to exist the grower of grain, who is com¬ 
pelled to find a foreign market and exchanges his product for woolen 
goods, must on his return give to the Government out of every hun- 


10 


dred yards of cloth 68^ yards for the privilege of selling the other 31f 
yards. This helps those most damorons for internal-revenue repeal, 
who, or their fiiends, make woolen goods to sell 31f yards as nearly 
as possible at the first cost of the 100 yards imported. At the la^ 
session, while promising to reduce tariff taxes, these new disciples of 
Jefferson so increased them on manufactures of iron and other metals, 
including cotton and other machinery, that the planter who exchanges 
100 bales of cotton for any of these manufactures must on his return 
surrender to the Government the foreign proceeds of 45 for the priv¬ 
ilege of selling or using that received in exchange for the other 55 bales. 
All makers of iron products, with their especial representatives, profess 
reverence for the great name of Jefferson in continuance of this abuse. 

Yet these are but examples of the innumerable existing abuses which 
it is proposed to perpetuate by the repeal of the internal revenue; for 
when we shall have abandoned this profitable source of revenue the 
lightest of our many burdens carried only by the willing, then will the 
protectionist claim to find reason not only to continue but even to aug¬ 
ment the enormous bounties and exactions of the present tariff. 

It is said this is a war tax and must be repealed now that the war has 
ended. The obligations of the war have not ended with the war itself. 
In the last twenty-two years we have paid nearly $800,000,000, and in 
the next twenty-two years we will pay not less than $1,000,000,000 for 
pensions. The bonded debt was never quite $2,400,000,000. It is yet 
more than $1,200,000,000. The cost of the war is not half paid. In¬ 
ternal taxes which yielded more than eight-tenths of the revenue ob¬ 
tained from that source have been repealed. Liquors and tobacco, which 
yielded less than two-tenths alone, are now made to contribute. And 
whatever else may be said of the system, what it takes from the people 
it puts in their Treasury. What under the urgencies of war was added 
to the weight of customs, especially that which yields bounties indi¬ 
rectly, remains to plague us, cut off our commerce, and prevent an ex¬ 
change of our products abroad for which there is no market at home. 

These additions or war-tariff rates should be repealed, because with¬ 
out yielding revenue they increase the taxes and burdens of the people. 
Until these are removed internal revenues ought not to be further re¬ 
duced. Even the repeal of the tobacco tax would be unwise finance 
and only justifiable as a help, if need be, to the removal of tariff abuses. 

UNSATISFACTORY CONDITION OP ALL INDUSTRIES. 

The office of all others I am least ambitious to fill is that of alarmist 
or foreboder of evil to my country and its people. And certainly the 
report of the committee does not overstate the fact in saying “ the con¬ 
dition of manufacturing industries is not satisfactory.” Those of us 
who refuse to shut our eyes to facts must admit this to be true of most 
if not all industries. 

In that referred to in the committee’s report, iron and steel, it is shown 
that its most important division was idle one-third of the time in the 
year 1882 and yet produced all the iron the people could use. In the 
year 1883 less iron was made than in the previous year, and therefore 
more mills were idle. The same is true of all leading industries; they 
have outrun in their capacity to make goods the ability of the people 
to use and pay for them. Our mills, furnaces, forges, cards, and spin¬ 
dles more than equal the wants of our population. Shall we wait for 
our people to grow up with the mills, cards, and spindles? That will 
never be while Congress offers bounties for the products of new mills. 


11 


In the same journal of daily news you may read of manufacturers 
before Congress protesting against a reduction of taxes which yield them 
bounties, of the opening of new mills or shops, of old ones shutting 
down and running on part time, of a 20 per cent, horizontal cut or re¬ 
duction in wages, and of manufacturers before Congress protesting 
against a reduction of taxes which yield them bounties, hypocritically 
assuming that they are protesting that wages may be maintained. 

While the mills stand still and their owners divide among themselves 
profits eight months of the twelve, what is the laborer to do ? To take, 
with or without the forms of law, part of the earnings of those who 
work the whole twelve months to pay twelve months’ wages to those 
who are permitted to work hut eight, would be dishonest. To main¬ 
tain by taxation an industrial system which enforces idleness with its 
attendant suffering upon men willmg to work is a crime. Both are 
impossible of long continuance consistent with the welfare of the State, 
for when all who are willing to work find employment their earnings 
but little exceed their daily subsistence. Want of employment for 
great masses of industrious men from any cause can not fail sooner or 
later to bring suffering, misfortune, and hunger, and hungry men are 
dangerous. 

WE WANT A MARKET ABBOAD FOR WHAT WE CAN NOT SELL AT HOME. 

When industrial and financial misfortune came upon us in 1873 it 
was credited by protectionists to a depreciated currency and other relics 
of the war, excepting always tariff taxes. Abundant harvests here, and 
short crops abroad, brought us good prices for our grain in foreign mar¬ 
kets and out of trouble in 1879. Evidently the stoppage of mills and 
shops, the cutting of wages, and want of employment for men willing to 
work, are danger signals to all industrial interests. It is not new indus¬ 
trial establishments we need, for we have more than are employed. It 
is not men to work, for many are idle; besides we have free trade in labor 
and a half million a year come from abroad. What we want is a mar¬ 
ket; somebody to buy abroad what we can not sell at home. Agricult¬ 
ural products can not relieve us, as in the financial troubles of 1873 to 
1879, because the customers who then bought of us have other sources of 
supply in India and elsewhere in the East. These are being so developed 
that they can supply food in ever-increasing abundance. 

If this were not so the division of labor and its growing productive 
power compels us to find other markets than our own for manufactures 
which have so outgrown the wants of our own people. Whatever else 
the tariff has or has not done it has taxed us out of all other markets 
than our own; and such was the purpose of its authors. On this subj ect 
Mr. Mobrill said while a member of the House: 

When one nation admits cotton or any raw material free of duty other nations 
are forced to follow the example or cease to manufacture beyond their own con- 
Biunption, unless they give equal compensatory advantage upon exports. 

When Mr. Morrill and his associates, who made and who continue 
the present tariff, refused to admit ores, coal, wood, wool, and other raw 
materials free of duty, they were not ignorant of the effect of such re¬ 
fusal and must have intended our people should “cease to manufiicture 
beyond their own wants.” 

UNTAXED MATERIALS. 

That we may manufacture beyond our own wants the policy of Mr. 
Morrill and his associates must be so changed that in materials con¬ 
stituting so large an element of the cost of production our people must 


12 


be placed on a level of fair competition with all others. It was for 
this purpose that in the bill as first presented me ores, coal, and 
some of the cruder materials for use in manufactures were placed on 
the free-list. Ultimately and speedily, too, all classes would be bene¬ 
fited by such legislation—the manufacturers first, laborers most. Yet 
the proposition met no favorable response from the manufacturers them¬ 
selves, or, so far as I am advised, from any member here claiming to be 
the especial representative of the industrial interests. Untaxed ores 
lie at the bottom of all real reform in the metal schedule. The tax on 
iron ore with interest and profits on investment goes into and increases 
the cost of the pig, then into the bar and the more finished product, 
adding the cost at every stage of production. The same is true of all 
the cruder materials which are used in the processes of production. 
Eevenue must be derived from products ready for consumption if ours 
is to be a manufacturing nation at all commensurate with its unlimited 
resources or beyond the wants of its own people. 

LOW TARIFF DEVELOPS COUNTRY MOST. 

When this is done manufacturing industries may add something to 
the wealth of the nation by reason of the tribute which other nations 
must pay to its endless resources and the unrivaled skill and intelli¬ 
gence of its people. 

The grand aggregate of national wealth, counted in the census at 
$43,300,000,000 in 1880, was but $26,460,000,000 in 1870. ‘ ‘ Behold, ’ ’ 
exclaims the protectionist, “ the results of our system which so multi¬ 
plies and nearly doubles the wealth and national savings in a single dec¬ 
ade. ’ ’ Further investigation will show that in the ten years from 1850 
to 1860 with very low tariff taxes wealth was more than doubled, and 
that was the only decade in our history which doubled wealth. Pro¬ 
tection has prevented this industry from bringing anything to the 
wealth of the country from abroad. Had manufacturiug industry pro¬ 
duced more that could bo sold profitably abroad it might have better 
claim to the credit of the country’s growth and development, when 
for its own prosperity it has been dependent upon other domestic in¬ 
dustries. 

DUTIES MUST BE REDUCED ON BOTH MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURES. 

To the extent that materials are relieved from tax the articles into 
which they enter derive advantage over competing articles of foreign 
make, and the duty on such competing articles should be correspond¬ 
ingly reduced. Without this manufactures would be more highly pro¬ 
tected than they now are and more rates would be prohibitory. 

It may be asserted that competition would regulate all this in the 
public interest, but the assertion is not justified by the practices of pro¬ 
tected interests. The fact is quite notorious that distinctive branches 
of manufacturing industry highly protected against foreign competition 
combine to maintain prices to the injurj^ of the general public. In the 
larger industries such combination is more difficult, but it pervades the 
whole system, and for twenty-five years Congress has been a party to! 
it. Some of the larger industries have tariff committees to advise Con-! 
gress how to make laws that they may make money. Opportunities' 
for such combinations have grown into monopoly. 

The use made by the manufacturers of their advantages bestowed by 
Congress does not justify Congress in adding to them. To compensate 
them for income and other domestic war taxes estimated by the advo¬ 
cates of more protection at the time to be $128,000,000, they were given 


13 


largely increased protective rates. They secured the removal of the 
$128,000,000 fifteen years ago, hut adhere to the increased compensatory 
duties with the tenacity of men in pursuit of some honest purpose. 

TARIFF TAXES DO NOT ALL GO TO THE TEEASTTEY. 

In estimating the causes of present or possible financial and industrial 
embarrassment the great burden of taxation must not be forgotten. 
Since 1885 national. State, and local taxes have exceeded $1,200,000,000> 
and the contributions of the people do not all reach the Treasury. This 
is especially true of tariff taxes imposed for protection. 

It is sometimes claimed that certain taxes are more popular or less 
unpopular than others. An inquiry on that subject woiid probably 
disclose the fact that as a rule the tax will be most popular with each 
tax-payer of which he pays least and others pay most. The sum nec¬ 
essary for good government must be paid. When one pays less another 
must pay more than his fair proportion. And there is probably noth¬ 
ing for which a thoroughly honest man will so readily excuse himself 
for being dishonest about as the payment of taxes. Still they must be 
paid and by our own people. 

The doctrine that the importer pays them for us is apparently ex¬ 
ploded. If the foreign maker were permitted to and did sell in oux 
market 100 tons of iron at $1,400, or $14 per ton, duty free, the maker 
of iron here must sell at the same price. If a duty of $6 were imposed 
on the foreigner he must add it to the price and sell it for $20 if he re¬ 
turns with the same amount for his iron. Suppose he does not add 
the duty to the price, but pays it himself, sells his iron at the same 
price as if it paid no duty, $14, and returns with $8 per ton; how 
would the maker of iron here be benefited or protected ? It is only 
because the duty goes into the cost and price of the foreign article that 
the domestic producer is protected. • 

To afford protection a duty must be a tax. To what extent customs 
revenue and the tax on articles of foreign make add indirectly to the 
annual burdens of the people through the increased cost and price of 
the home-made competing article is yet a matter of much speculation. 
Sometimes the price of the domestic article is increased to the amount 
of the whole duty on the foreign; sometimes to no part of it. But the 
duty on foreign articles whenever they are imported adds something to 
the price of what are made Jiere. Two years ago I made an estimate, 
based on official statements taken from the census and Bureau of Sta¬ 
tistics, which showed that in the census year the whole increase in cost 
of sugar to the consumer resulting from the tariff, which on sugar and 
molasses is largely a revenue tariff, was $48,820,418, which was so di¬ 
vided that the Treasury received $7.51 of revenue, while the planter 
received $1 of bounty. 

I The duty on hoop-iron was $31.66 per ton. The price of the domestic 
’article was $14.61 more than the price of the foreign article, including 
cost of importation, which was an increase equal to half the duty. 
iThe Treasury received $500,986, and the manufacturer $1,414,876, or 
$2.82 for $1 to the Treasuiy. On bar-iron the average duty was $22.66 
'per ton; the value and price of the home product was $7.40 in excess 
'of the cost of the imported article, including cost of importation, an 
increase equal to but one-third of the duty, and the manufacturer re¬ 
ceived $4,907,761 bounty; the Government, $1,641,453 in duty—$3 to 
manufacturer, $1 to the Government. Iron rails pay $16.68 duty. 
The increased cost over the foreign article was $11.33, or two-thirds of 



14 


the duty. The cost of iron rails was increased by the tariff $6,114,916, 
of which $5,290,119 went to the manufacturer, and $824,747 to the 
Treasury; $6.41 for bounty to $1 for revenue. (III.) 

From this statement it will appear that those who use these articles 
of home production pay for them at prices increased, some of them, to 
the extent of the whole duty; on others less than half the tax on the 
same goods when imported, and that under this system the annual tax- 
paying burdens of the people do not end with the contributions to the 
Treasury for public uses. 

Since this statement or estimate was made the prices of the articles 
selected for illustration may have changed and the duty on some of 
them have been modified; this requires some modification of the state¬ 
ments, but they illustrate the principle or lack of principle by which 
this system confers especial advantages on its favorites. 

Estimates of the cost of this system to the people resulting from the 
increase of prices and the cost of living have been made by many who 
have given great consideration to the subject, among them Professor 
Perry and Robert J. Walker, both of whom estimated it at much more 
than goes to the Treasury. Mr. Tilden, with more caution, writing of 
our enormous taxation, said: 

It was aggn*avated by most unscientific and ill-adjusted methods of taxation 
that increased the sacrifices of the people far beyond the receipts of the Treas¬ 
ury. . 

PRICES AND COST OP LIVING INCREASED BY TARIFF. 

A comparison of present prices with those of twenty or fifty years ago 
can not be made with entire accuracy. The make, style, and structure 
of fabrics are continually changing. Old things new made are given new 
names. In the report of the Iron and Steel Association made in May 
of last year, already referred to, the price of anthracite pig-iron per 
ton is given for 1860 at $24 per ton, for 1880 at $28; rolled bar-iron, 
1860, at $60; for 1880 at $60, and iron rails, 1860, at $48, for 1880 at $49. 
These prices indicate that in iron there has been no decline of prices in 
the last twenty-five years. 

Accurate comparison can not be made in textile fabrics of cotton, wool, 
flax, and silk; but in these goods, of some descriptions at least, prices are 
lower than they were twenty-five years ago, but not nearly so low as 
they would be but for the expense added to the cost of making them by 
the high rate of protective taxation. 

In the statements made before the committee by the representatives 
of the Iron and Steel Association, protesting against the bill, they said, 
“If the duties are reduced the selling price of our products must be 
reduced;” and such were the statements made before the committee 
generally, thus admitting that prices are kept up by the tariff. Ex¬ 
cept when a reduction is proposed the contrary doctrine is insisted upon, 
and before this debate is ended it will be insisted again and again that 
whatever reduction of prices has occurred in recent years results from 
the tariff, when the fact is they result from the ever-growing genius 
and aptitude of men. That goods are made at less cost year by year by 
reason of our bettered processes we learn in the every-day affairs of life. 

Then why should restrictive legislation distribute the advantages of 
all human progress as applied to popular well-being among the favor¬ 
ites of Congressional legislation ? If the same effort is required now as 
long ago to obtain the same comfort and good fortune, of what use to 
humanity is all we have learned? Only a few years ago the cost of 
.railroad service was two or three times its present cost; their owners 


16 


made great reductions voluntarily and still had great profits. By rea¬ 
son of the intelligent use of what has been learned in building and 
operating railroads further reductions were only just. Every State in 
the Union asserted the prerogative of the people and required railroads 
to carry at reasonable rates. No man’s wages was reduced, neither 
was that subject inquired of. By reason of the same causes which ena¬ 
ble railroads to carry cheaper, the makers of all things material for use 
in our mills, fields, and homes are made cheaper; and yet the Congress 
of the United States interposes to keep up prices and the cost of human 
TOmfort, that the people may have no benefit of what has been learned 
in all these years. 

KXPOKT OF AGEICULTUBAL, PRODUCTS DOUBLB THAT MANUFACTURERS USB. 

In the lower cost of transportation on land and sea is to be found one 
chief agency of the wondrous development which bounty-fed manufact¬ 
urers credit to protection. The system, by adding to the cost of the 
materials for railroad construction, has increased the cost of railroad 
transportation at least 25 per cent. In the lower cost of carrying agri¬ 
cultural products they have found their only sources of profit. On more 
than one occasion here I have exposed the fallacy of obtaining a home 
market for agricultural products through protection maintained by tax¬ 
ing agriculture. In 1880 the agricultural product was counted in the 
census at |2,212,540,927. Assuming that these products were used by 
the people equally without regard to their occupations, those engaged 
and employed in manufacturing, including all mechanics, also miners, 
consumed of the products classed as agricultural 1335,000,000 worth, 
while for more than double as much, or 1685,961,091 worth, the pro¬ 
ducers were compelled to seek a foreign market. 

WAGES OF LABOR NOT HELPED BY TAXING IT. 

During more than half of the last ten years wages have been as low 
or lower than before the adoption of the taxing policy as a pretended 
means of making wages higher. They are lower still when compared 
with the use which those who earn wages are compelled to make of them, 
for they must use them to obtain the means of comfortable living. 
Counted by what our laborers are able to accomplish and produce in 
quantities, an .1 especially in values, wages here are but little more in 
many industries than the wages paid by our chief commercial rivals. 
There is but one horizontal reduction for which our opponents are will¬ 
ing to legislate—the reduction of wages—and this their favorites, with 
or without regard to legislation, are now executing day by day with 
cruel regularity. 

Of all the false pretenses with which protection mocks its victims the 
assumption that labor is helped or protected by taxing its earnings is the 
flimsiest. Protectionists, in common with our people, invite the sur¬ 
plus labor of all the world to come, untaxed, unrestricted, free, and join 
us on equal terms and share in the profits of the wonderful heritage this 
newer world aflbrds. The captains and masters of industry, if not mas¬ 
ters of Congress as well, take to themselves protection of a very differ¬ 
ent kind—they tax the people at home that they may have no compe¬ 
tition from abroad. 

REPUBLICAN PROTECTIONISTS CURE THE ILLS OF OVERT.4.XATION BY MORE TAXES— 
DEMOCRATIC PROTECTIONISTS BY MORE PLATFORM. 

In the opinion of the minority members of the committee, represent¬ 
ing as they do the friends of the prevailing policy, the cure for whatever 
of national ills exist, so fe-r as they result from taxation, is to be found 


16 


in higher-priced clothing and other articles useful in fields, mines, and 
homes; for that is what is meant by higher-taxed wool, fence-rods, 
cotton-bands, and tin-plates. Some ofour friends here would cure the 
ills of overt^ation with a declaration of purpose, the execution of 
which they would carefully avoid. And here is the declaration. It 
is called the Ohio platform: 

We favor a tariflFfor revenue limited to the necessities of Government econom¬ 
ically administered, and so adjusted in its application as to prevent unequal bur¬ 
dens, encourage productive industries at home, afford just compensation to labor, 
but not to create or foster monopolies. 

A tariff for revenue limited to the necessities of the Government is 
demanded by this plan of relief. Is the tariff now so limited ? If not, 
then why refuse to limit it ? Who among the Kepresentatives of the 
goodly people of that State who made this declaration believes it is so 
limited ? Who among them believes the pending bill will reduce the 
revenue below the necessities of the Government ? These are ques¬ 
tions to which the plain people of the country want an answer. They 
will demand to know why tariff taxes are not removed in part if they 
are beyond the revenue limit. Do gentleman expect to escape responsi¬ 
bility because rates are not rightly adjusted ? The adjustment will be 
the same when reduction is made, but whatever of monopoly belongs 
to it will be fostered by 20 per cent, less than it now is. If this plat¬ 
form has an honest meaning it is that the tariff shall be lowered to a 
revenue basis. And gentlemen but deceive themselves who expect the 
people will be deceived by a refusal to legislate in accordance with this 
declared purpose. If the protective policy is to be the continuing policy 
of the Government, it will be, and ought to be, intrusted to its Mends, 
the Republican party. 

ARGUMENTS FOB PBOTEC?riON BASED ON ASSUMED DANGER OF REVENUE TARIFF. 

Every argument in support of the protective policy is based on the 
assumption that any considerable tariff modification, especially a mod¬ 
ification to the revenue basis, will destroy manufacturing industries, 
compel the abandonment of shops and mills, and force those now en¬ 
gaged in them into other employments. This is the old, old story. It 
was told of manufacturing industries in their infancy; it will be told 
when protection brings them to decay. Eight years ago I introduced 
the first bill for free quinine and providing for untaxed alcohol for use 
in making it. At once it was insisted that quinine-making would be¬ 
come a lost art among us if such a bill should pass into a law, and it 
did not then pass. Later on, when the story of free quinine got among 
the people, another placed the bill before the House, omitting the free- 
alcohol provision, and the bill became a law, protectionists themselves 
feeling obliged to vote for it. The great Philadelphia house did not 
go into decline, but continued its business of quinine-making success¬ 
fully as the second largest quinine establishment in the world. So 
every legitimate industry would go on with a revenue tariff. 

It is insisted that wages are so much higher here than in countries 
seeking our markets that revenue duties will not equjilize the difference 
in the cost of production. Conceding the truth of what is not true, 
that the foreign rival must pay for the privilege of selling in our mar¬ 
kets a sum equal to the difference in wages to enable the home producer 
to sell with reasonable profit, let us see if revenue rates will compen¬ 
sate for that difference. The census value of manufactures for 1880 was 
$5,369,579,191. The wages paid in making them were $947,953,795. 


17 


The difference in cost of goods is said to be the difference in the cost of 
wages. But suppose the difference between the cost here and the cost 
abroad amounts to all the wages paid here, then these manufactures 
would cost abroad $4,421,625,396. Suppose the average rate of duty 
which the bill before the House leaves at 33 per cent, was reduced to 
22 per cent., and at that rate this $4,421,625,396 in value of goods was 
imported. It would cost the importer at tliat rate, of 22 per cent., 
$972,757,587, which not only makes up for the difference in wages but 
exceeds all the wages paid for making all the goods. 

If those who claim especial friendship for manufacturing industries 
will insist on their going into decay and then dying, some other apology 
must be found for their taking off than the removal of unnecessary 
taxes. 


APPENDIX. 

I. 

Btatement showing total and per capita importations in the years 18G0, 1880, and 

1883. 



1860. 

1880. 

1882. 

Population... 

.31.413,321 

HQ, 155,783 

54,163,000 

Total importations. 

Importations to the person. 

Dutiable. 

Dutiable to the person. 

Free merchandise. 

Free to the person. 

$353,616,119 00 
11 24 
279,874,640 00 

8 90 

73,741,479 00 

2 34 

$667,954,746 00 
13 31 
459,652,883 00 

9 16 

208,301,863 00 

4 15 

$724,639,574 00 
13 72 
514,060,567 00 
9 73 

210,579,007 00 
3 98 


II. 

March 11,1884, Mr. Moebison, from the Committee on Ways and Means, sub¬ 
mitted the following report: 

The Committee on Ways and Means, to which was referred so much of the 
President’s message and accompanying documents as relates to the revenue, 
respectfully reports that in said message and accompanying documents the 
President has deemed it his duty to give to the Congress information as follows : 

“To make a start in the proposed reduction of revenue from imports, the TariflF 
Commission had been created. In good faith it undertook the work. In its re¬ 
port to Congress it said : Early in its deliberations the Commission became con¬ 
vinced that a substantial reduction of tariff duties is demanded, not by a mere 
indiscriminate popular clamor, but by the best conservative opinion of the 
country. * * ♦ Such a reduction of the existing tariff the Commission re¬ 
gards not only as a due recognition of public sentiment and a measure of justice 
to consumers, but one conducive to the general industrial prosperity, and which, 
though it may be temporarily inconvenient, will be ultimately beneficial to the 
special interests affected by such reduction. Entertaining these views, the Com¬ 
mission has sought to present a scheme of tariff duties in which substantial re¬ 
duction should be the distinguishing feature. The average reduction in rates, 
including that from the enlargement of the free list and the abolition of the duties 
on charges and commissions, at which the Commission has aimed, is not less 
on the average than 20 per cent., and it is the opinion of the Commission that 
the reduction will reach 25 per cent.” 

******* 

“ The chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, in explanation of the bill 
before the Senate last year, which, after various amendments became a law, es¬ 
timated at $45,000,000 the reduction of the revenue which would follow the 
changes in the tariff proposed thereby. 

“ These intentions and calculations have not been verified. 

******* 

**So the quest ion still presses, what legislation is necessary to relieve the peo¬ 
ple of unnecessary taxes? ” 

Mo-2 





















18 


Your committee find that In the first six months ending December 31, 1883, 
under act of March 3,1883 (the new law), dutiable merchandise was Imported 
into the United States valued at 8235,898,109, on which duties were paid amount¬ 
ing to $96,514,136, being 40.91 per cent, on the value thereof. In the correspond¬ 
ing six months of the year 1882, under the old law, the value of dutiable imports 
amounted to $260,856,273, and the duty paid was $111,266,507, or 42.65 per cent, on 
the value. It thus appears that the average cost of importing goods valued at 
$100 was only $1.74 less under the new than under the old law. 

This exhibit of reduction in rates made by act of March 3,1883, amounting to 
1.74 per cent, of the duty, is subject to an unimportant modification resulting 
from changes in value and other conditions, some of which increase and others 
reduce comparative ad valorem rates. 

The nominal reduction made by the proposed bill is 20 per cent., or one-fifth 
of the present rates. With the Morrill tariff limitations in the bill, and the liquor 
and silk schedules omitted, as they are, the actual reduction on the basis of last 
year’s imports will not exceed 15.74 per cent, on the whole importation of dutia¬ 
ble goods. Together the average reduction made in the Tariflf Commission bill 
(act of March 3, 1883) and that to be made by the proposed bill do not equal the 
reduction “at which the commission aimed.’’ 

Wood, sawed lumber, coal, and salt are of such universal use among and so 
necessary to all the people that in view of the present abundant Treasury re¬ 
ceipts it is not deemed advisable longer to obtain revenue from a tax on these 
articles. 

The decrease in revenue as shown by the receipts under the new law other 
than that resulting from the nominal reduction of 1.74 per cent, results from the 
falling off to the value of nearly $25,000,000 of Imports in the first half year, 
under the new law, as compared with first half of the previous year under the 
old law. The reduction of revenue receipts under the bill reported is estimated 
at $31,000,000 on the basis of last year's imports. To the extent of that $31,000,000 
the bill will “ relieve the people of unnecessa^ taxes.” To that extent taxes 
will be reduced directly “^as a measure of justice to consumers,” and indirectly 
in largely Increased proportion. 

From a statement made by the Bureau of Statistics, a copy of which Is ap¬ 
pended to this report, it appears that duties or tariff taxes were decreased on 
some and increased on other articles of imported goods under act of March last 
(the new law). While this is true, there has been no increase of the rates of 
wages in any, but a reduction of wages in mo.st industries, as Avell In those 
whose competing products received more as in those that obtained less protec¬ 
tion under the act of March last. 

The condition of manufacturing industries is not satisfactory. In common 
with other industries they only recovered late in 1879 from reverses or partial 
paralysis of five years’ duration. In less than three years’ after this recovery 
such new evidences of industrial adversity appeared that in one of the largest, 
bestrpaying, and best^paid industries, iron and steel, the calamity of four months’ 
stoppages and idleness fell upon the workers dependent upon it, not upon the 
capital invested in it. 

In the annual report of the American Iron and Steel Association for the year 
1882, made May 1,1883, by James M. Swank, esq., secretary of the association, 
ho says: 

“At the beginning of June nearly all the mills referred to (rolling-mills of 
Pittsburgh and the West) were closed by a general strike, which continued until 
the last of September, when work was resumed upon the scale of wages which 
had previously prevailed. During the strike of four months the prices of rolled 
iron did not advance, notwithstanding the stoppage of so many mills, a fact 
which clearly demonstrated that the capacity to produce this form of iron had 
again, as in the p.anic years, exceeded the demand. * * ♦ At the same time 
It must be frankly admitted that our rolling-mill capacity has for some time 
been in advance of the consumptive wants of the country, and that the check to 
the overproduction of rolled iron which was afforded by the strike of 1882 was 
in no sense a calamity to the manufacturers.” 

It is believed by your committee that the condition of the iron and steel indu.s- 
tries and of the workers in them has not much improved since 1882; that the 
condition of other industries is not unlike and differs only in degree from iron 
and steel; that the calamity of frequent-recurring industrial embarrassment and 
enforced idleness is inseparable from the enormities of our protective system; 
and that the calamities of such a system always fall upon the laboring poor. 

Your committee therefore report the bill with the title above, and with the 
recommendation that it be passed “ as a measure of partial relief to the people 
from unneces.sary faxes, as a measure of justice to consumers,” and “conducive 
to the general industrial prosperity.” 


Values of impol'ts of duiiahle merchandise entered for consumption in the United States, ivith the amount of duty and the ad val¬ 
orem rale of duty collected, during the six months ended December 31,1882 and 1883. 


4 


19 



9 

s 

ft? 


m 

o 

<4 

hH 

w 

a 

CO 

O 


TuEASUUY DEPAKTJiiiKT, liUKEAU OF STATISTICS, 10, 1881. 











































‘JO 


ct 

u 

fl 

O 

a 


1 

8 

a 

«5 

05 

ci 

4D 


Cl 

0 

VO 

4) 


0 


b 


4 

Im 

a 3 

r- 

S 

^ 0 

8 

42 4 

3^3 

1 

0 


Q 



8 0 OO Ci O Q 
1-H O iC o 

a t> 


i 




8 


o 

o" 

V) 




o 


PM o 

rH O 


5 


I 

03 

«59 


a 

0 

o 

ce 

'O 

c: 

c 

e8 

e 

p< 

o 

o 

H 


c2 

.^5 

cy a 

Ih 

o 


M 


6 

iJ o 

Q 


M 


CO CO O Cl Q M 
CO X 00 u5 00 


Cl # ^ 


O' 


/, 




S?8 

«-H CC 
CO 


i 



o o 






rM 

0 


CD 



C* 

05 


i 

05 

V 





o o 


o 


IC 


M o o *-< o o 
X 1 C O O uo o 

M kC — O c^ X 
Q X X 

O * 05 




kC 


■2 § 

00 ^ 
^ o 

^1 


CO 

X 

8 


8 


CD 

Cl 

CD 


& 


^ Cl 
CD Cl 

Mji CD 


5 

53 

d 


§ i 

3 

^ 2 S 


o^ 
^,2 
►X CO 2i 


3 

J3 


Im 


U 

<y 

52 ^ c o 

— 3 ^ »-i X }[5 

^3 g M3 ^ 5^ 

•*«< 2 ^ 

© O ;« 3 

C X D 

^ C O C ^ 

bc^ V O 

^•Zr •*j> cj 


5 S ^ 

w O 


s 

H 

0) 


>k 

32 


3 Ci« :2 *H ^ ^ ^32 '5 


5 0 53 5-312 

X 


O*^ Ug^O,' 




D 42 


0 ;rf o >* >» >i 


3 3 <y H 3 zs 

r2'3’^34>x^03 

c3i«0iH0000 


♦Average, 
































































Suffar and molasses, year 1880 . 


/ 


\ 


21 



U 

o 

1 

s 


S 

cS 

u 


a 

o 

u 

o 

> 

oS 

D 

5 



o 

A 


o 

o 


o 

x: 


o 

Mil 

3 

•3 

V 

w 

48 

a 

« 

<9 

<9 

u 

cfi 


o 

3 

d 

> 


8) 




O 


f 


Ift 


{ 


( • 


f f 




I 


It 

i 


t ( 


1 


* 


4i 




t 


•f 


\ > 




t 




t 


s 











































fc^v 


.V-TPiV' 




. ,iv /v I-' 



I« ' 


• I’ 


*/^ l f 


V • 


•*-? ■• ' 

^ :t0>l' ,. 


[#.U 






^-r y.' 




.■iV 


f > 






'^.HT 






'.w-w . • ■ ‘•‘Ki^’Jx*' 


.; ' .' v 

' ■•■"'Mg' •;! >;ia 




^ L» 


h 


t'\ 

r }' 


>' 'l 


ft,'''W,'k.*V'*- 



,v.' 


I # '! 


t^ 


:v 


,w»;;y 


,ir. 


>:>. ^ ^ ".rtj§i|P ^‘ ?- j.''' ^ ■ p 

i. . 5'.V: , .".jgHHI ' s*' 

' T/W '-'> '■•■ ’ •&! / .4 

ipy ^ .. > /fi|(li^v, ■■:-l(fl',‘ 

[■ : !* -lA'■. ■ ■'•/i,g';, •;•■'W'< • :■, ■. 


.'■'•.^jfr’$ '.*' •■J 

’/■„ \*‘fn :lv._ • ■, • ,«, 



/I 


\Y 



:. ,■ ■’Ttf ■v,>l;:-,,v-v., ■ ” .v-^ ■ ■^ '■*T 

K T IEM\ Jr Ji I i *^#1^ 1 « 

fe;, . . :. ,>■ ^ . V Ai’-. ;- .I.’isjf _i ," . ' 

f,. , '■ ..■ - , (;;4;;Sf-., .r V iJW 

^ ^ ^ ■ -. vvi '•' 


’, ^ >*-r- , hr . i J,-. .. ir^”^V/4 J 

\ \ ■ V/i'>’ *»' P I ^ 

,»K',iAi’4i' '1 V■>..i % 


W «’--v ' 1 

'■■ ?i‘t''...- .!, 5 V:-?! 

^ *#T r L' 3! 


‘'S'. 


) I 


I ' 


: •* 









' j,'*.;', '■■■'. 

''A... . ■ , /,'/•■':* , 

^ ■' ''-"ii^: "■'■• '■ • ' .'\ ■'^'?'^ __- 


f\ 








■T 




f i 

f,‘ 






4. 


$m^^'}Y¥v-' ^'v 


m 


Sft.->.: •'i',^ .;v ^ •■.■j •; 

A. 


■• '^p .,-ft 


f, ^. 








's rj 


. '^4'. ';• ■■■‘i 




♦ 1 


i‘ V- 



•■•'• ‘ ■ r f' 






.1 


J.' . 


I M 


4r 


< I 


r** • «A 







A*. 


.J '■> a ■ m-' 

iHiP 


' • ^ 

■ • ■' :.«V'f 


tr 


, ' ., .A 'L '•>. . 

'.. •’' - f' . . .1.' ’1 

, . . j.i' . ■> ;,'»,il'/] 


w . T" ' ■ 

jftf ' ;^;lA ’,;v ,, . ■ . , 

i ■ - k ,. f . i ' • .* » I. .'. 






<». > 




V'li% ..• ., tf v54- MPit'' 













I 





^ . 1 » 


» I 


i 


'r 







• . I 




»i' 


' ♦ 



» 


\ 

t 


t, 

' t 


# 


t, 


.£ - 

* i 


4 


» 


* 


V*. 



I 




i 



> 




■i. 

« 




f 





I 



• r 



I 


y*‘ 

'! > ’ * 

^ I 




I 


r 



r 


I 


•' f • 


r 


• » 




M*. 


fll'V'V'';fj‘V>:''“:"' 


•/ * 


.«I. I 


/ . 


• ll 1 


1 


» / • ' 










"1 

1 




' M 

'•m 

• L'i 


( • 
t’ u 



. 1 


r 

I, 


9 


I 


> 


/ 




r- 


> 


‘ A 


I 


i 


1 


% 


i* 






I ^ 
* ■ • 



tW 



• < 




j 




/ 

• I /. 







I I 

■ ;'. ^ 



. ■ . . 


\ 



i 


» 


\ 


I 


I 






“The stiug of taxation consists in wastefulness.”— Niehiihr. 




SPEECH 


HON. LEOPOLD MORSE, 

OF MIASSA-CHUSETTS, 


IN THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


APRIL 99, 1884. 


WASHINGTON. 

18d4. 






‘ I . ‘ t .* '• • ^ I, ‘ . -. ' wH TIWW- tl ' ■ i ‘ »\ ■ ' “ ‘ . i- . 







R>. •’■ .* T > f: 

" -*&v 5 f 


'' ' '* 0 ^''^ •'> f^IV ■‘(.v<’-iV i,f'’>Ai'..• ■ ' ' 






.i'‘ai^' 
/*W*' >, 


V '* 

.tl-V' s 

A fc.vnf 


^ 5 vf ^ ' 1 


r* “ * W 


r. • • * " ■ 'V •• v-;; -^' 

. - * . I ' * I 


- ? s^.'#v.iss 

SvWtiiS^’ >f'.:,','S»^ •v^.vvcf 

•^■w ,1 .. ‘ :;,.,1''S ■ i■^,^,■jv ', >; ■ 1! • I 


■l } \- • I ^ 





r 


K. 


.j 

v\ 










*«nV-■. 1 'I'' ■ "'< ■'T' nnH 

j .■Vfi::vvi,: r .;'.!.i,,tiWi'?-'’’ • ”m 

'■ .‘■. 4 .: ,,„ 

kv 7/'‘^•'i' ' ' . , -..v. ' itkf 

•■• V'V, vj 

^ I , ' 1^4 •< ‘ . ' ■' • i'A jtJSM 

■ ■ v=.>. ^‘.r.;-:\'.• 



■ ' 5 S. ' ^ 

A V:»a^-S ' 


I. " jVjV. ■ |¥ . 

I ^ # 


'’^'L 

11 *« Vg\ 


• • iiWV* * *■ 


'. i 


.k'. 


• ^ 






■■'.: ■ ■ . 'v .': 7 S 7 .' 

'-m .:v>®i^k^rS 4 /a 


». . 




* \ ' » 



r.T... ' 

’f . / ** ' 




; ■' ... i - ''^. ■■" ■ 






v^vVirMUK: 1^ M Mim .#vv>?j „ 



® . ' ’ 7 “ n«w?iA AVKdMWlluiVx. 


mVy. 

r 


;!y ....■ fi - • ■* ' ■T lwrl^ y.i'' }* 

/• 'At' 




t/i 


m'M 


C f. 


T 


. ff 


. ■ *>' f*. 




;j iC/ 


’1 ■'I, i' '"*^ >■'.7*1” 

,* • LV*.**^ i^^kr I '^, ^V’v** 'X'i ' ' ' 





7 vi!y::(ii, 


,tfV' 







SPEECH 


OF 

HON. LEOPOLD MOESE. 


The House beingin Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5893) to reduce import duties and 
war-tariff taxes— 

Mr. MORSE said: 

Mr. Chairman : I do not propose in tliis debate to consider questions 
not legitimately raised by the pending bill, but to confine myself to 
matters which naturally come up and are necessarily to be considered 
in determining the vote to be cast finally for or against tariff reduction. 
My first duty as a Representative, it seems to me, is to inquire into the 
condition of the Treasury and the requirements of the Government for 
the next fiscal year, and then to do what I can to prevent the collec¬ 
tion of more money than is necessary to meet those requirements. 

It is admitted on all sides that under our present system of taxation 
we are collecting about $100,000,000 a year in excess of what is required 
to carry on the Federal Government, administered as it has been for 
years on a basis of extreme liberality, to say the least. 

Now, the surplus revenue is dangerous in many ways. In the first 
place, it is a wrong done to the people of the United States to withdraw 
from the ordinary business of the country the sum of $100,000,000, and 
to hoard it up in the Treasury of the United States, to lie there idle, 
when it might be usefully employed in conjunction with the labor now 
unemployed in developing the resources of the country, while the indi¬ 
rect taxation, the amount of which is uncertain and unknown, and 
which can never go for the public good, but only for the increase of 
private profits, is a greater wrong because it is both unlawful and un¬ 
measurable. 

It is an unlawful burden imposed upon the tax-payers who have long 
borne heavy burdens of taxation and borne them uncomplainingly, be¬ 
cause they seemed to be required by the necessities of the Government 
and the people. And it is not only unjust so far as the tax-payers are 
concerned, but the evil seems still greater when we remember the influ¬ 
ence of so large an amount of money in exciting legislation in favor of 
unnecessary objects. When revenue is collected equal only to the 
necessities of the Government it is carelully husbanded and only appro¬ 
priated for the purposes which are legitimate and proper; but when it 
is so large in amount legislators are tempted to expend it upon schemes 
which are neither national, legitimate, nor in anyway conducive to the 
public welfare, but on the contrary lead to extravagance and thence to 
corruption, for one follows the other as surely as night follows day. 

Niebuhr, the philosophic German historian, as the result of his studies 
said that “ the sting of taxation consists in wastefulness.” To save 





4 


ourselves from any such danger the safe course to pursue is to collect 
only the needed amount of revenue. Suppose the city government of 
Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Saint Louis, or any other 
large city should collect one million more for one year than would he 
required to pay its necessary expenses; how long would that adminis¬ 
tration remain in power? Only until the next election took place, 
when they would be hurled out of power, as we ought to be if we do 
not at this time vote to adjust the income of the Government to its 
, necessities. 

It is unfortunate that this vital question should be embarrassed by 
the excitements and passions of a Presidential campaign, but we can 
not change the inevitable; and now that the issue is presented to us by 
a solemn vote of the House it is our sworn duty to do the best that 
the circumstances by which we are surrounded will permit. What¬ 
ever responsibility may be incurred by others for neglecting to do a 
plain and pressing duty, we can not shirk or thrust aside what is in¬ 
cumbent upon us to do quickly at this time. 

Now, sir, I am not a free-trader, because the time has not yet come 
for free trade, although by the advance of all nations in economic knowl¬ 
edge I believe the day is not far distant when it will be adopted, if 
not altogether at least to a great extent, in this country. Nor am I a 
protectionist, because in my judgment the necessity for a protective 
policy no longer exists here, as our successful industries are undoubtedly 
able to cope with and win victories over the industries of other countries 
if we could have free raw materials to begin with. 

I listened very carefully to the speech delivered by the honorable 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kelley] who has made the tariff 
question a study for a quarter of a century, and who undoubtedly is 
as well informed and as honest and earnest as any man can be. If I 
understand him, as he stated his case, he gives his own country no 
credit for what has been produced from our soil, nor for our skilled 
labor and improved machinery, but claims that our whole prosiierity 
is the result of protective tariffs. To that I take exception. He might 
as well give credit to the “ Greenbackers, ” who sought to make the 
country rich by unlimited paper-money legislation, as to make our 
people believe that acts of Congress in favor of high tariffs are the cause 
of our agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial prosperity. 

The truth is, all values have for their basis labor and capital, one act¬ 
ing upon the other, and each dependent one upon the other. If I were 
urged to state what I believe to be the proper platform for just and safe 
action at this time, I would suggest the following: 

The reduction of taxation by limiting the national income to the or¬ 
dinary expenses of the Government; the cessation of silver coinage for 
at least two years; the passage of a national bankrupt law, which every 
merchant whose trade is large enough to reach beyond the limits of his 
own State will approve; give the country free ships, free coal, free lum¬ 
ber, free potatoes, free sugar—in fact, free raw materials; satisfy the 
people that you believe in civil-service reform by your acts; show them 
that yon are opposed to the spoils system. 

This ought to be the cheapest country in the world in which to live, 
instead of which it is admitted that it is the dearest. I commenced busi¬ 
ness in Boston in 1850, when I boarded at the old Bromfield House 
at $4.50 per week, room and all. The same living would cost me to¬ 
day $24.50. That may be charged to the credit ot a protective tariff 
system. I rented a place of business in 1859 in Dock Square, Boston,. 


5 


and paid ^2,000 rent per annum. I remained there long enough to pay 
$6,600 per annum. That may be credited to the protective tariff. The 
first year I went there I paid $372 taxes per year on that store, while 
the last year I paid $1,000 on the same store. That may be cred¬ 
ited to the protective tariff. I simply make this statement to show 
how ridiculous the argument seems to me as a business man that the 
whole prosperity of this country is due to a protective tariff. I deny 
that it is. 

Had the report of the Tariff Commission, Mr. Chairman, been enacted 
into a law as it was originally presented to this House there might not 
be to-day any necessity for further action on this question; and for that 
reason I do not like the present bill because it does not go far enough 
in general reduction. I would have it go so far as to settle the ques¬ 
tion for at least ten years to come. Had the committee left the bill as 
originally agreed upon, with a larger Iree-list, it would have satisfied 
me much better than the present measure does. In fact, I believe in 
putting all raw materials upon the free-list. With such a provision 
added to this bill, no further legislation on the tariff question would 
probably be required for another decade. What is feared, and justly, 
is the continued agitation of the tariff question. What we want is a 
more settled policy. 

I clearly see the difficulty in the way. Here comes Ohio asking 
that the duty on wool shall be restored, and members of both parties 
from that State vote for it, and are ready to go home and say they did 
it all and simply for the reason that they believe they could thereby 
carry the election in that State. It reminds me a good deal of the ac¬ 
tion of- the California delegation in reference to the Chinese immigra¬ 
tion several years ago. Each party in the delegation cried louder than 
the other, and each party tried to influence its political Iriends to join 
with it upon the assurance that the passage of that bill would insure 
success in the approaching election. Some one was cheated there, as 
we all know, and some one will be cheated in Ohio on the wool ques¬ 
tion. [Laughter.] 

It is claimed that high protection means a high price for labor. Who 
makes that claim, and where does it come from ? Pennsylvania has 
a fair representation in that direction. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, who appeared before the Committee on Ways 
and Means previous to the drafting of this bill by the committee ? 
Representatives of large associations and industries, gentlemen of means 
and attorneys of large corporations, and in their arguments, with tears 
in their eyes, they appealed to the committee not to make any reduc¬ 
tion in the revenues of the Government, all in the interest of the poor 
man. They with millions in their pocEets saying nothing about 
themselves, but wiping away tears at the very thought of the poor 
man’s imperiled interests. 

Most of those gentlemen who did appear before that committee, if I 
am correctly informed, came at the suggestion and request of some of 
the members of the minority of the Committee on Ways and Means for 
the purpose of giving them the material for their arguments in opposi¬ 
tion to this bill. Now we go to the House and listen to the speeches; 
a more pitiful story never was told. The gentleman from Pennsylva¬ 
nia [Mr. Kelley], my colleague [Mr. Russell], Mr. McKinley, of 
Ohio, and Mr. Jonathan Chace, of Rhode Island, all use the same 
argument, substantially, appealing for protection to the interests of the 
poor man, striving to leave the impression that the Democratic party, 


6 


who favor cutting down the revenue of the Government, are the enemies 
of the poor man. Do you think the poor men, or the laboring men, are 
fools? Would they make these arguments to-day if we were not just 
on the eve of a Presidential election ? If this question was simply 
looked at as it ought to be, on business principles only, and not with 
a view to catching votes, a different course would be pursued by many 
of the advocates of protection. 

Whatever tine theories gentlemen may weave into their speeches, or 
whatever splendid rhetoric they may use to catch the popular ear, it 
all resolves itself at last into the practical question of what is best for 
every constituency. 

Now, what are the facts of the case? Is it true or not that we col¬ 
lect about 1100,000,000 more than we need to carry on the Govern¬ 
ment? I believe it is. If everything remains as it is, of course the 
revenue will remain the same, or nearly so. Is it right that it should 
remain so, or is it our duty to reduce it to the income which is re¬ 
quired ? If so, how ? What would the result be should the bill now 
before the House become a law ? 

^ome claim that this bill would, if passed, increase the revenue. 
Mr. IMorrisox tells me that he has statistical estimates from the Gov¬ 
ernment Departments which assure him that this bill would make a 
reduction of at least $30,000,000 per annum; hence one of my com¬ 
plaints against the bill. I would like to vote for a bill that w'ould 
make a reduction of $100,000,000 per annum, and I hope some bill 
may be brought before the House having for its object such a reduc¬ 
tion, or that amendments may be offered to the present bill that will 
accomplish that end. We can do that wdthout making any reduction 
on whisky and tobacco. But not being responsible for the bill now be¬ 
fore the House, and simply performing my duty as a Representative, I 
shall vote for this measure, believing that it will reduce the income 
of the Government, and for any and all amendments that lead to a fur¬ 
ther reduction up to one hundred millions. Having supported such 
measures, I should then feel that I had done my duty to my constit¬ 
uents and my country as a member of the Forty-eighth Congress. 

The fact is that with all our machinery and labor fully employed 
we can produce more than we can consume. The safety of this Gov¬ 
ernment largely depends upon the full employment of our labor, which 
happy result you are not now and never will be able to bring about 
under your present tariff system. Protection is in the interest of the 
rich and not the poor. The cheap talk about our trying to degrade 
American labor is all bosh. It is not true. The talk about our trying 
to put American labor in competition with the pauper labor of Europe 
is all bosh. Foreign labor is not at all pauper labor. I have seen a 
good deal of it. I have seen European laborers happy as lords—danc¬ 
ing, singing, drinking, smoking, and enjoying themselves more than 
most of our own laborers. Why ? Under their system they get more 
enjoyment and pleasure for a great deal less money. 

Our laborers do not all wear patent-leather boots or live in free-stone 
houses. When you have lived to the age of most of the European coun¬ 
tries I fear that you will have more pauper labor here than they now 
have there. I know many fear a change in our revenue system, but it 
must come sooner or later, and we might as well begin now as at any other 
time. Suppose you had a standing army of a million of your best men 
from 21 to 25 years of age, which I hope we may never see; suppose you 
had such a navy as many desire, and I should be glad to vote for if I 


had the opportunity, though I hope we shall never need it for actual 
war, and suferthe people to be taxed heavily to maintain these services, 
you would find a different state of affairs here from what you do now. 
Under those circumstances I presume my friends would want a little 
more protection than they have now. 

The main trouble at the present time, as it seems to me, is that we are 
producing too much of everything, even too much legislation; in some 
places too much water, and in some too much whisky; in some places 
too much copper, and in others too much cotton or woolen goods. We 
certainly have too much protection, and too much talk in this House. 
[Laughter. ] I desire to direct your attention especially to copper. The 
Calumet and Hecla mine, the largest copper mine in the word, which is 
largely owned in Boston, for the first time in its history recently passed 
a dividend. Why ? Not because the mine does not yield as much as it 
ever did, but because the product of the mine can find no market. 

With our great resources, plenty of steam and water power, and our 
young and healthy labor, the best machinery in the world, with capi¬ 
tal as cheap as it is anywhere—with all these advantages we ought to 
be able to cope with the European manufacturers. Change your sys¬ 
tem, break down your wall, give us a chance to get out and our neigh¬ 
bors a chance to get in, and you will help labor as well as capital. Stop 
the Jiowd for opening the doors of the Treasury. A friend of mind told 
me once, if you want to get rich keep poor, keep no money on hand 
that you do not require, put no money in the treasury that is not needed. 
Thi^ is my platform as a business man, and not as a politician, believ¬ 
ing as I do that such legislation would redound to the credit of the mem¬ 
bers of this House and enhance the prosperity of our country. [Ap¬ 
plause. ] 

During the delivery of Mr. Morse’s remarks the following occurred: 

Mr. WELLER. Will the gentleman permit me to make an inquiry ? 

Mr. MORSE. Certainly. 

Mr. WELLER. Paying $24.50 per week for your board now, as you 
have stated, would it not take more of your fixed income to pay that 
board, and would not more legal dollars be thus put in the way of going 
into the hands of producers—the laboring classes—than when you paid 
$4.50 per week? 

Mr. MORSE. The more you pay for anything the richer you are, 
you mean to say. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WELLER. Would it not be for the enhanced welfare of the 
producer, though it might be detrimental to you as a man of fixed In¬ 
come—an annuitant? 

Mr. MORSE. I will come to that in a moment. 

When Mr. Morse had concluded his remarks, as they appear above, 

Mr. STRUBLE said: Before the gentleman from Massachusetts 
resumes his seat I desire to ask him one question. The gentleman dur¬ 
ing his remarks narrated his experience as a practical business man in 
Boston. He stated that when he commenced business his expenses 
were low, and that as years passed those expenses and taxation increased. 
I wish to ask him whether he made or lost money in those years? 

Mr. MORSE. I made money. 

Mr. STRUBLE. I am glad of it. 

Mr. MORSE. That is what I am in business for. [Laughter.] 




' - i 


» I'' 


, > 




■ r 


. • rl *• 


Vy 

f •** 






\S t.* ^ ,' 


.11 


'• •• 




f- 

i. 




'I J 


J 


* ♦ 


4> • 

« 

r'■ 


j' 


f’. 

r 






1' 


r”. ■ . 

» 

C 




t • 


i ■ ' 

'♦ i ?' 

L,. 0< 

.AJi.:' V ', 




*.. ; 


liifif..,; 


. ' <■ * 

•» 




» 


4 »: * 


- , i . ■ t ,' 


*. > ' 

* . ' >' 

^ K* • 






:t 


IV 


i' • ^ 


.'V* ' 



^ * ’'. V •* .• I 

.j'i; ,•..' ^v<I 

‘ f, ■’ • . .. 




■ .:‘r'. 


•*. 




* ,r-*^ 




' s * 


' c^' 


•«■■■. 










* r' ' • 


•'*. ' i 


•A ' ‘ 




i't' 




•, >, .. 



's 


■ -r .* .\ ^ -i** ' 

^ .*<>V • ' • • • . •' r 

jjf) 


^•K.: 


»• > L f 

• ' .• • • 

f /■, 


; /.: >. 


V-*. 

v: 


• j 






•’ 4 . 


•; 


6;. 


.AV. " J' ' 




k . 
I 


’**- ' ' 








5. 




.'. t. < 


A J 


Uniform System of Bankruptcy, 


SPEECH 

OP 

HON. SAMUEL W. MOULTON, 

OF ILLINOIS, 

' In the House of Representatives^ 

Monday^ May 19, 1884. 


The House having under consideration the motion of Mr. Collins to suspend 
the rules and adopt the following resolution : 

"Resolved, That Senate bill No. 1372, to establish a uniform system of bank¬ 
ruptcy throughout the United States, be taken from the Speaker’s table, and that 
the same be made a special order for Tuesday, June 10, and from day to day until 
disposed of, to be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole, not to 
interfere with general appropriation bills, revenue bills, reports from the Com¬ 
mittee on Public Lands, or prior orders”— 

Mr. MOULTON said: 

Mr. Speaker: I was not aware that this question was coming up 
to-day, and had made no preparation with the view of stating my objec¬ 
tions to this proposition. 

I am opposed to fixing a day for the consideration of this bill, be¬ 
cause I do not believe the people, with their past experience in bank¬ 
rupt legislation and practice, desire the passage of any such bill as is 
proposed. 

The petition for a bankrupt bill only conies from a few money cen¬ 
ters in the Eastern part of our country, as New York, Boston, and a 
few other places. 

I am decidedly opposed to the passage of any bankrupt law. I con¬ 
cede, Mr. Speaker, that Congress has power to pass such a law, but my 
opinion, from the experience of this country as well as other countries 
that have tried bankrupt acts, is that the Government should not inter¬ 
fere as between creditors and debtors. Let the creditor and the debtor 
regulate their own business relations in such manner as they may agree 
upon. Our experience in this country in reference to bankrupt laws 
shows beyond all controversy that such legislation, instead of prevent¬ 
ing fraud, tends directly to produce it. There are men who in the ab¬ 
sence of a bankrupt law to which they may appeal to protect themselves, 
or obtain other advantage, would go on and be honest; but the very 
moment that you hold out to them an avenue of escape from their debts 
it makes dishonest men of them. The bankrupt law operates as a pre¬ 
mium on dishonesty. 




5 


Such legislation also operates directly against the honest trader. The 
honest, fair-dealing man in the city or in the country can not compete 
with the man who intends, as soon as his business may become involved 
or in failing circumstance, unable to meet his debts, to take the benefit 
of the bankrupt law. The dishonest man, where there is an act of 
this kind in operation, is looking all the time for relief by operation of 
the law. 

The honest traders have no chance in competition with the class of 
traders who sell goods at 10 to 20 per cent, less than cost, put the 
money in their pockets, and then take the benefit of the bill under con¬ 
sideration, obtain their discharge, and then repeat the same process 
with same result. 

Our country is unlike in circumstances to any other country on the 
globe. We have a vast extent of territory, thirty-eight different sov¬ 
ereign States, all with different laws in relation to economic questions, 
different rates of interest, exemption of property from forced sales, 
homestead exemption, statutes of limitation, diversity of habits and 
business of the people, so that no bankrupt kiw can be passed that 
would operate equally and fairly in all parts of the country. It might 
be for the advantage of the people in one locality and ruinous to the 
people in another. The interest on money in the Eastern manufacturing 
States is aljout half what it is in the Western States. Money is 
abundant in the East. In former years Eastern manufacturers sold 
directly to the merchant and trader out West. Of late years a large 
jobbing business has sprung up in the West. These jobbing-houses 
supply a large amount of goods to the small traders, who are known 
personally to the jobber, as well as their financial condition, habits 
for industry, honesty, &c. In these cases if the traders are unable to 
pay at the day, the jobber knowing them, and believing them to be 
honest, extends the time or otherwise assists them and tides them over 
their difficulty and saves them. Now, if these traders had bought in 
New York or Boston and had failed to pay at the day, bankruptcy 
proceedings would have been resorted to if a bankrupt act was in force, 
and the trader ruined, and without any advantage to the creditor. 
The assets would be consumed by the bankruiDt machinery. 

There is another consideration in this connection. The jobber who 
now purchases from the Eastern manufacturer would be destroyed 
under the operation of this bill. It would be for the interest of the 
Eastern manufacturer to do it so that they could monopolize the entire 
trade of the country. By means of the great abundance of money at 
the East and the less rate of interest the Eastern vendor could pur¬ 
chase the outstanding paper of the Western jobber, and if he failed to 
pay at the day, to crush him by the bankrupt machinery; and this 
practice was frequently resorted to under the law of 1867. It is as¬ 
sumed by nearly all advocates of a bankrupt law that the masses of the 
people are naturally dishonest. 

This position is untenable from the fact that in all the commercial 
transactions in the United States the average loss from business debts 
do not amount in the aggregate to over one-half to 1 per cent, of the 
volume of the business transacted, which shows plainly that 991 per 
cent, of the debts created are paid, and at least 99 per cent, of them 
without recourse to law. This would seem to show that no bankrupt 
law is needed. 

But it said that this bill is an improvement over the law of 1867. 
The same things were said about the law of 1867 that is said about 


3 


this law, that it was the result of the experience of all countries and 
the perfection of reason. We all know how disastrously the last law 
operated. It encouraged dishonesty and fraud, ruined honest men, was 
no benefit to the creditor, and the assets were absorbed by those who 
administered the proceedings. It is doubtful if the proposed bill will 
operate better than the old one. The bill is almost a hundred pages. 
It is cumbersome and full of subtleties—definitions. Distinctions and 
conditions of various kinds abound. The expense under this bill will be 
very great. In the administration of the law it provided for commis¬ 
sioners, supervisors, trustees, committees of directions, and other officers 
of the State and Federal courts. 

The bill is of such length and complication that no prudent busi¬ 
ness man would venture to proceed a single step under it without legal 
assistance. He must employ counsel. Not a single case in my opin¬ 
ion under this law but would involve litigation, great expense, and 
delay, with no corresponding benefit to any one. If a bankrupt law in 
this country should be ever necessary, it should be a plain, short, sim¬ 
ple, inexpensive law that a common business man could understand, 
framed on equitable principles, and even such a law should be enacted 
only after some great financial revolution or crisis, and then should be 
limited in its operation for a single year or less time. Bankrupt laws 
in every country have been failures. It is hoped that our country will 
never be again cursed with such enactments upon our Federal statutes. 


O 




TAX REFORM. 


PLEDGES TO THE PEOPLE MUST BE KEDEEMED. 


SPEECH 


OF 


HON. SAMUEL W. MOULTON, 

OF ILLINOIS, 


IN THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


Thursday, March 27, 1884. 


WASHINGTON 

1884. 




V 



S P E i: C H 


OF 

HON. SAMUEL W. MOULTON. 


The House having: under consideration the bill (II. R. 5265) to extend the time 
for the payment of the tax on distilled spirits now in warehouse— 

Mr. MOULTON said: 

Mr. Speaker: IT the Democratic party fail to make a reasonable re¬ 
duction ill the customs duties, and leave the protected industries of the 
country where they now are, and no reform should be attempted in the 
interest of the whole country, then I can see no special reason so far as 
the interests of the people are concerned why the Democratic party should 
be in power rather than the Kepublican. If it had been understood by 
the people at the last election that the Democratic party were not then 
in favor of immediate reform and a reduction of the revenue to the real 
necessities of the Government, the large majority we have here would 
have been relegated to private life. And I will add that if no attempt in 
good faith is to be made to reduce the outrageous war tariff that now 
oppresses the whole country, other men will fill the places of the ma¬ 
jority on this floor. 

It is surprising to find men upon this floor, elected as Democrats, 
claiming that no reform of reduction in the tariff is necessary, and if it 
was this is not the time to attempt it. They say that any agitation 
of the tariff question will frighten and disturb the business interests of 
the country, and that financial disaster and panic among the protected 
industries would be the result; that notwithstanding millions of money 
is unjustly taken from the pockets of the people and accumulated in 
the Treasury, no remedy for the great wrong is to be applied, and 
this vicious sy.steni is to go on without day and without hinderance. 
This has been the argument and fraudulent pretense of the Kepublican 
I)arty and protected classes for the past twenty years. It would seem 
that the Democrats favoring protection have gone over entirely on this 
question to the protectionists, and they are making common cause with 
them to defeat any reduction in customs duties. Although the reve¬ 
nues of the country give the Government nearly $1100,000,000 yearly 
more than is required for the ordinary expenditures of the Government, 
yet the protectionist Democrats and Kepublicans say this is not the 
time to reform and reduce the tariff; and what is remarkable, no time 
is mentioned by these protectionists when this important question of a 
reduction of taxes is to be considered. Nothing can be clearer than 
that the protectionists upon this floor and in the lobies of this House 
intend by every possible means to defeat any action tending to reduce 


\ 



4 


the tariff. The clamor of the protection classes is to be respected 
against the cry of the great mass of the people for relief against bur¬ 
densome and unnecessary taxation. 

The Democratic doctrine upon the subject of the tariff is that no more 
revenue should be collected from the people than is necessary for the 
expenditures of the Government economically administered, or, in other 
words, customs duties should be for revenue only. This doctrine has 
been announced in the conventions of the party and substantially ad¬ 
hered to from the beginning of the Government to the present time. 
If there is any principle that can be said to be Democratic doctrine and 
running through all the years of the 'Government, it is that a tariff 
should be for revenue only. I know that incidental protection is some¬ 
times talked about, but protection for the sake of protection and with¬ 
out reference to revenue has always been repudiated by the Democratic 
party as a pernicious doctrine and without sanction in the Constitu¬ 
tion. I maintain that the tariff is a party question, and always has 
been so considered and acted upon by the Democratic party. 

As showing the doctrine of the Democratic party upon the question 
of the tariff ancTrevenue I will read some of th'e resolutions adopted by 
the party, beginning with the year 1800: 

The first Democratic platform was adopted by the party, then called 
the “Republican,” as distinguished from the Federalist party, in a 
Congressional caucus at Philadelphia in 1800, the year in which Jeffer¬ 
son was first elected to the Presidency. It demands: 

6. Free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or 
no diplomatic establishments. 

The next Democratic platform, known as the “ Locofoco ” platlbrm 
of 1836, was adopted by the first national convention for nominating 
candidates for the Presidency. It proclaims: 

Hostility to any and all monopolies by legislation, because they are violations 
of the equal rights of the people. 

The true foundation of republican government is the equal rights of every 
citizen in his person and property and in its management. 

■ The next Democratic platform was that of 1840, adopted by the Pres¬ 
idential convention at Baltimore, which contains these resolutions: 

Resolved, That justice and sound policy forbid the Federal Government to 
foster one branch of industry to the detriment of another, or to cherish the in¬ 
terest of one portion to the injury of another portion of our common country. 

5. Resolved, That it is the duty of every branch of the Government to enforce and 
practice the most rigid economy in conducting our public affairs, and that no 
more revenue ought to be raised than is required to defray the necessary ex¬ 
penses of the Government. 

The Democratic convention of 1844 reaffirmed the fourth and fifth 
resolutions of the convention of 1840. 

The Democratic national convention of 1848— 

Resolved, That it is the duty of every branch of Government to enforce and 
practice the most rigid economy in conducting our public affairs, and that no 
more revenue ought to be raised than is required to defray the necessary ex¬ 
penses of the Government, and for the gradual but certain extinction of the debt 
created by the prosecution of a just and necessary war; and, that the results of 
Democratic legislation in this and all other financial measures, upon which issues 
have been made between the two political parties of the country, have demon¬ 
strated to the careful and practical men of all parties their soundness, safety, and 
utility in all business results. 

Resolved, That the fruits of the great political triumph of 1844 have filled the 
hopes of the Democracy of the Union in the noble impulse given to the cause 
of free trade by the repeal of the tariff of 1842, and the creation of the more equal, 
honest, and productive tariff’ of 1846, and that in our opinion it would be a fatal 


error to weaken the bands of a political orj^anization by which these great re- 
hsive been achieved, and risk them in the hands of their own adversaries 
witii whatever delusiv’e appeals they may solict onr surrender of that vigilance 
which IS the only safeguard of liberty. 

The Democratic convention of 1852— 

Resolved, That it is the duty of every branch of the Government to enforce and 
practice the most rigid economy in conducting our public affairs, and that no 
ought to be raised than is required to defray the necessary expenses 
of the Government and for the gradual but certain extinction of the public debt, 
n- 1 view of the condition of popular institutions in the Old 

^Voidd, a high and sacred duty is devolved with increased responsibility upon 
the Democracy of this country, as the party of the people, to ujihold and main¬ 
tain the rights of every State, and thereby the union of States, and to sustain and 
advance among them constitutional liberty by discontinuing legislation for the 
benefit of the few at the expense of many. 

In 1856 the Democratic national convention— 

Resolved, That justice and sound policy forbid the Feileral Government to fos¬ 
ter one branch of industry to the detriment of another, or to cherish the interest 
of one portion of our common country. 

It also repeated verbatim the first resolution quoted above of the con¬ 
vention of 1852, and then it— 

Resolved finally. That there are questions connected with the foreign jiolicy of 
this country which are inferior to no domestic questions whatever. The time 
has come for the people of the Uniled States to declare themselves in favor of 
free seas and progressive free trade throughout the world, and, by solemn mani¬ 
festations, to place their moral infiuence at the side of their successful example. 

Ill 1860 both the Douglas and Breckinridge platforms reaffirmed the 
resolutions of 1856, quoted above. 

In the year 1864 the continuation of the civil war, which made im¬ 
prudently high duties necessary to raise sufficient revenue, precluded 
the necessity of discussing the extraordinary and willingly endured 
burdens imposed by it on the people of the Northern States, and nothing 
was said about the tariff. 

The Democratic convention of 1868 demanded: 

3. Payment of all the public debt ofthe United States as rapidly as practicable— 
all money drawn from the people by taxation except so much as is required for 
the necessities of the Government, economically administered,,^eing honestly 
applied to such payment. * * * 

Q * * * A tariff’for revenue upon foreign imports and such equal taxation 
under the internal-revenue laws as will afford incidental protection to domestic 
manufacturers, and as will, without impairing the revenue, impo.se the least 
burden upon and best promote and encourage the great industrial interests of 
the country. 

In 1872 the Democratic convention (so called) held at Baltimore, 
which was in fact a Greeley and not a Democratic convention, did not 
adopt any Democratic resolutions, but indorsed the platform of the 
“Liberal Republican” convention held at Cincinnati, which contained 
the following curious declaration, making the tariff “a local issue:” 

We remit the discussion of the subject [protection and free trade] to the peo¬ 
ple in their Congressional districts and the discussion of Congress thereon, 
wholly free from executive interference or dictation. 

This is the only hiatus in the chain of assertions by the Democratic 
party of the doctrine of a tariff for revenue only. It resulted in the 
shameful defeat of a candidate supi)orted by the party in defiance alike 
of principle and policy. 

In 1876 the Democratic convention spoke with no uncertain voice: 

We denounce the present tariff, levied upon nearly 4,000 article.*^, as a master¬ 
piece of inju-stice, inequality, and false pretense. It yields a dwindling, not a 
yearly rising revenue. It has impf)veri.shed many industries to subsidize a few. 
It prohibits imports that might purchase the products of American labor. It 


has degraded American commerce from the first to an inferior rank on the high 
seas. It has cut down tlie sales of American manufactures at home and abroad 
and depleted the returns of American agriculture—an ind ustry followed by half of 
our people. It costs the people five times more than it produces to the Treasury, 
obstructs the processes of production and wastes the fruits of labor. It promotes 
fraud, fosters smuggling, enriches dishonest officials, and bankrupts honest mer¬ 
chants. We demand that all custom-house taxation shall be only for revenue. 

In the Democratic platform of 1880 the old doctrine was tersely re¬ 
proclaimed: 

Home rule; honest money, consisting of gold, silver and paper convertible on 
demand; the strict maintenance of the public faith. State and national, and a 
tariff for revenue only. 

The doctrine that the citizen should be left free to buy where he can 
purchase the cheapest and sell where he can command the best price 
seems to me to be axiomatic. No argument can add to the common 
sense of the proposition. This doctrine universally obtains among the 
citizens in their intercourse with East and West, and it is the rule in 
interstate commerce and to the great adv^antage and benefit of all. 
Not a man in the whole country would for a moment submit to any lim¬ 
itation of this right of free trade among ourselves and the States. 

But the protectionists say that this Iree-trade doctrine operates well 
within the limits of a nation, but the moment you extend this doctrine 
to free trade with other nations then the principle is reversed and it 
becomes dangerous and ruinous to the nation adopting it. It seems to 
me that what is economic and prudent in the conduct of every private 
family can scarce be folly and ruinous in that of a nation. If a ibreign 
country can suppl}'^ us with a commodity clieaper than we ourselves can 
make it, we had better buy it of them with some part of the produce of 
our own industry. 

Dr. Adam Smith, in his “ Wealth of Nations,” illustrates this prin¬ 
ciple in this way: 

The natural advantages which one country has over another in producing 
particular commodities are sometimes so great that it is acknowledged by all 
the world to be in vain to struggle with them. 

By means of glasses, hot beds, and hot walls, very good grapes can be raised 
in Scotland and very good wine, too, can be made from them at about thirty times 
the expense fj(i^ what at least equally good wine can be brought from foreign 
countries. Would it be a reasonable law to prohibit all foreign wines merely to 
protect and encourage the making of claret and burgundy in Scotland? 

This example of Adam Smith may be extended to hundreds of cases 
in our country where high protective taxes are given at the expense of 
the whole people to maintain certain industries that could not live 
without this bounty or subsidy. This is an unnatural condition of any 
industry so protected, and ought not to exist. 

It is a remarkable fact that most of these protected industries tend 
directly to enhance the cost of all the necessaries of life, and I will give 
some examples illustrating this. 

WOOLEN BLANKETS. 

Blankets are one of the great necessaries of life, and the people ought 
to have them at the lowest price, but by the operation of the present 
tariff the cost is greatly enhanced. Good blankets can be bought in 
Europe for 30 cents per pound; our tariff on such blankets is 20 cents 
per pound and 25 per cent, ad valorem. This amounts to near 100 per 
cent, and this makes the tariff' nearly prohibitory. Now, $25,000,000 
worth of blankets are purchased and used yearly in this country, and 
by reason of the tariff' the people are forced to buy from the protected 
manufacturer here and compelled to pay double the price for which 


7 


they could, obtain them but for the tariff. This enhanced price goes 
into the pockets of the manufacturers, as we are compelled to buy of 
them. 

Take the price of men’s clothing in New York and London. For in¬ 
stance, a broadcloth dress suit which costs $50 in New York costs only 
$22 in London. A heavy business suit which costs $30 in New York 
costs but $13 in London. A spring serge overcoat which costs $20 in 
New York costs but $8.50 in London. A winter beaver overcoat which 
costs $35 in New York costs but $14.50 in London. A silk hat which 
costs $5 in New York costs but $3 in London. These articles alto¬ 
gether cost in New York $140. In London they cost but $61. The 
man who buys these clothes, therefore, in New York pays $79 more for 
them than he could buy them for in London. 

Flannels, worn in some form by nearly all of every age, sex, and con¬ 
dition, pay a duty ranging from 88 to 100 per cent., which is prohibitory. 
So of woolen hats, that are in general use—the tax on them is so high 
as to prevent their importation; but, as in all such cases, the duty is 
added to the price of the article, and goes into the coffers of the manu¬ 
facturer. Odious and cruel, the present tariff is leveled with unerring 
precision at labor and poverty, and seeks to favor luxury and wealth. 
Thus the duty on hats is 64 per cent., while the duty on silks is but 60 
per cent. Salt, that article of first necessity toman and beast, is taxed 
70 per cent., and diamonds only 10 per cent. Trace-chains are taxed 
56 per cent., while treble ingrain carpets pay but 50 per cent. Brussels 
carpets are taxed 68 per cent., and coarse blankets 104 per cent. Fine 
woolen rugs for the lady’s parlor and covers to keep the dust and moisture 
from the piano are taxed 45 per cent., while flannels to keep the body 
warm, to protect the shivering invalid, the workingman and his wife, 
and the aged people alike from the freezing blasts of winter, are taxed 
100 per cent. Plain unbleached cotton cloth for shirts and other gar¬ 
ments worn by the laboring masses of both sexes is taxed 49 per cent., 
and the window-glass in their houses 67percent. Fine porcelain ware 
for the rich man’s table is taxed only 45 per cent., and the artificial 
flowers and feathers for the adornment of his wife and daughters pay only 
50 per cent. And such instances could be multiplied into hundreds. 

The same may be said of copper, tin, steel in various forms, and vari¬ 
ous other necessaries of life. The prices are all increased by the tariff 
from 50 to 100 per cent. 

SPECIFIC DUTY REDUCED TO AD VALOREM, 

The table below is for the purpose of showing the ad valorem duty 
where the specific duty is 41 cents per sijuare yard on colored cotton 
goods counting less than 100 threads to the square inch, counting warp 
and filling. These figures should show to all who are in favor of an 
equitable tariff the injustice of the present one to a class of goods con¬ 
stantly needed and chiefly used by the poorer classes. Allow us to ask 
if goods measuring from 32 to 36 inches wide, and costing in Glasgow 
from 1| pence to 2| pence, and goods measuring 50 inches wide, cost¬ 
ing from 2 pence to 41 pence, should pay an average duty of over 100 
per cent., when it is well known that the labor value of these goods does 
not exceed 25 oer cent. ? It should also be borne in mind that the labor 
value of these goods in Scotland is about 15 per cent., and to this must 
be added freight from Glasgow and other charges amounting to about 
10 per cent, on these classes of goods. From these figures it will be 
seen that the percentage of duty on these goods is the percentage of 


/ 


8 


profit secured to the American manufacturer. We may add that these 
classes of goods are all made from American cotton: 

BLACK CRINOLINE LINING. 


1 .. 

2 ., 

3., 

4.. 
•5. 
6 . 

7 . 

8 . 

9. 

10 . 

11 . 

12 . 


Quality niiinber.s. 


1 .. 

2 .. 

3., 

4., 

5., 

6 . 

7., 
8 . 
9. 

10 . 


Average duty. 


Average duty, 




D fli 





2 " 

S a> 


G-S 

^ 0 


c 


^ ^ i 


I 

5 § 

oS 

« cS 1 
0 

r* , 

S’-n 

o S 

G . 

G 

^ u 
.2 1 

•4^ 

X r- 1 

i O.S 

O 


X ^ 

S OS 

1 

' Amo 
per 
I yar 

G 03=1, 

U‘> 0 

K 

! ! 

! Pence. i 

Inches. 

Cents. 

Cents. ' 

Per cent. 

If! 

32 

2.80 

4.00 

143 

....' 11' 

32 

3.04 

4.00 

131 

u 

32 

3.55 

4.00 

112 

....! . U 

32 

3.79 

4.00 

106 

i 2 

32 

4.06 

4.00 

98 

21 

32 

4.30 

4.00 

93 

....i 2} 

32 

4.56 

4.00 

87 

....' 2j^ 

32 

5.58 

4.00 

71 

....1 11 

36 

3,04 

4.50 

148 

....1 If 

36 

3.55 

4.50 

127 

. .. 11 

36 

3.79 

4. .50 

118 

21 

36 

4.56 

4.50 

98 

i 


■■ 

. 

111 

! 





TARLATANS. 

2 

50 

, 4.06 

6.25 

153 

21 

50 

4.56 

6.25 

137 

21 

50 

; 5.07 

6.25 

123 

2f 

50 

5.58 

6.25 

112 

. : 3 

, 50- 

1 6.09 

6.25 

102 

31 

' ,50 

6.60 

6.25 

94 

31 

1 50 

, 7.10 

6.25 

88 


' 50 

7.61 

i 6.25 

82 

.1 4 

, 50 

1 8.12 

6. 25 

1 77 

.1 41 

.50 

i 9.13 

; 6.25 

68 

1 


1 

i 

i 

* 103 

1 

i 

1 



The Republican Congress of 1882, by the almost universal condemna¬ 
tion of the war tariff then in force, found it necessary to pretend to do 
something that seemed to favor a reduction. To this end and in order 
to deceive the people and still maintain the tariff in the interest of pro¬ 
tectionists and monopolists they created the Tariff Commission scheme. 
This was a shameless desertion of their duty and a scheme to postpone " 
tariff reform at f he expense of a tax-burdened people. This commission, 
after perambulating the whole country and listening mostly to those 
whose interest it was to preserve the tariff as it was, reported that the 
tariff ought to be reduced 25 per cent. 

Now, upon this report what did this Republican Congress do? In¬ 
stead of reducing the tariff 25 per cent,, as recommended by the com¬ 
missioners, and which ought to have been done, it appears now from the 
figures from the Treasury and the report of the Committee of Ways and 
Means of this Congress, and not disputed by any one, the Republicans of 
the Forty-seventh Congress reduced the tariff only 1.74 per cent. That 
is to say, the importation of goods valued at $100 is $1.74 less under 
the new Republican tariff than the old law. Thus it will be seen that 
the people have been deceived and that the tariff remains to-day sub- 




» 


\ 









































1 ) 


stautially at war rates. This is a disgrace to our civilization and a fraud 
upon the people. It is in the interest of the few and against the rights 
of the many. 

l>ut the protectionists say in answer to all this that if we are not pro¬ 
tected in our industries we can not live; that unless the whole people, 
by means of a tariff, are compelled to help us and enable us to charge 
double what our products can be purchased elsewhere we Will have to 
close our business. This is the argument in defense of the present war 
tariff. There are no principles more clearly laid down by political econ¬ 
omists and demonstrated by the experience and observation of the busi¬ 
ness world than these : That a trade or business which is protected and 
forced by means of high duties and monopolies is disadvantageous and 
ruinous to the country in whose favor it is meant to be established; but 
that trade which without force or constraint is naturally and regularly 
carried on between individuals or any two places or nations is always 
advantageous; that no commercial nation w’as ever ruined, impover¬ 
ished, or even injured by opening the ports to trade with its commercial 
neighbors ; that every country, on the contrary, in i)T’oportion as it has 
opened its ports to all nations, instead of being ruined by this free trade, 
{IS the principles of the protective system would lead us to expect, has 
been enriched by it. These principles have been illustrated at differ¬ 
ent periods of our own country. The less restraint upon trade and the 
freer a people are the more prosperous and happy they are. 

There is free trade between the States and to the advantage of the 
whole country. 

What is of the most importance to us now is free trade with the com¬ 
mercial nations of the whole world, so that Ave may have a market for 
our overproduction caused by the unnatural stimulant of a high pro¬ 
tective and prohibitory tariff. The home nuirket is wholly inadequate 
for the consumption of our productions under'existing circumstances. 
Our factories and warehouses are overflowing with goods, with no buyers, 
and thousands of workmen out of employ; and yet the protectionists 
i nsist that there shall be no change in the tariff laws, and that the present 
deplorable condition shall remain unchanged. Theposition of the Re¬ 
publican party is well expressed by one of the leading protectionists, 
lion. William P. Frye, in the Senate of the United States, February 
10, 1882, in these words: 

If there were no public del)t, no interest to pay, no pension-list, no Army and 
Navy to support, I should still oppose tariff for revenue only, and favor protect¬ 
ive duties. 

To-day we are reaping the fruits of their astounding folly and mon¬ 
strous heresy. To enable this country to compete in the markets of the 
w'orld with other nations our tariff should be reduced to a revenue 
standard, and all raw materials that enter into the composition of man¬ 
ufactured articles should be admitted duty free. A tax on raw materials 
to the extent of the tax adds to the cost of the manufactured articles of 
which the raw material is a part. Most nations admit raw materials 
free. That gives the manufacturer in those countries an immense ad¬ 
vantage over the American manufacturer. The tariff on the raw ma¬ 
terial, increasing its cost, prevents American competition and Ave are 
shut out of the foreign market. Many of the manufacturers of the 
country are beginning to appreciate the effect of a high tariff on raw 
materials and now are boldly advocating the repeal of all taxes on raw 
materials in order that they may compete with foreign nations in the 
markets of the Avorld. Protection of industries and taxes on raw ma- 


10 


terials cannot exist for any length of time. Taxes on raw materials 
invariably lead to the decay of manufacturing industries. No country 
presents better examples of this than our own—strikes, stoppage, half¬ 
time, reduction of workmen’s wages, bankruptcy, and ruin. If our 
industries are to lead an active, healthy life, then every tax must be taken 
off of raw materials. This reform will work wonders. Our manufact¬ 
urers will then demonstrate that they can compete with Europe in the 
neutral markets of the world. 

WOOL. 

The high tariff on wool is wholly indefensible. It absolutely pre¬ 
vents us exporting manufactured articles of wool. 

Wool Can be grown as cheaply here as in any country in the world. 
The extent and variety of our climate invite to it. We have all the 
advantages of Australia and South America. Why should the people 
of all the States pay toll to the farmer of Ohio or Pennsylvania if his 
laud has become too valuable for sheep-raising. Sheep-raising has natur¬ 
ally gone West upon cheaper lands. This is the natural law of that 
industry. Let the Ohio people use their lands for other purposes more 
profitable. High tariff upon wool whas been a disadvantage to wool- 
growers in this country. As a rule the higher the tariff on wool the lower 
has been the price. In 1879, under the war tariff, wools were taxed 
10 cents per pound and 11 cents ad valorem; the price of wool that 
year was lower than it had been for many years, running down to 12 
cents per pound. The high tariff excluded the foreign wools. These 
wools were wanted for mixture with the native wools in manufactur¬ 
ing and without the foreign wools there is less demand for native wools 
and consequently lower price. This has been the history of tariff on 
wools. 

Mr. James Leach, the oldest importer and dealer in wools in the 
United States, and a recognized authority in all matters pertaining to 
the trade, was asked the other day what had caused the recent disasters 
in the woolen trade. “In two words,” replied Mr. Lynch, “overpro¬ 
duction and overcompetition.” Continuing, he said: 

The excessive protection and overfostering of the business for a period of six¬ 
teen years has caused an excessive supply of raw material and of all the articles 
made from wool. Now, in the present condition of things it is quite clear that 
we have more wool and woolen goods of all descriptions than we are able to 
consume, and we have no market beyond the United States, the tariff on the 
raw material preventing us from competing with older countries where no duties 
are imposed. This excessive protection of the raw wool is more than our man¬ 
ufacturers can overcome. They can’t send their goods out of the country for a 
market; hence the plethoric supplies and the overloading of commission mer¬ 
chants in woolen goods, clothing merchants, and so on. SVool has been pro¬ 
tected to death. 

The same reasoning will apply to most of the other manufiicturing 
interests of the country where the raw materials used are highly taxed. 
And the ruinous effect of this policy is felt by the consumer in the in¬ 
creased cost of most of the necessaries they use. 

SUGAR. 

The demand for free sugar is almost universal. It comes up from al¬ 
most every part of the country. The reduction in the tariff on sugar was 
expected to be opposed by the sugar-planters in Louisiana. We find per¬ 
sons representing this interest have been here, and according to their 
own statements attempted to pool their interest with Pennsylvania in 
regard to iron and coal, and Ohio in relation to wool, and combine what¬ 
ever other interest they could against a reduction of the tariff. The av- 


% 


11 


erage consumption of sugar per capita in tliis country is forty-five pounds. 
The poorest find it a necessity. In 1883 the Government collected about 
$48,000,000 in duties on sugar. The tariff' was over 60 per cent. The 
same class of sugar for which we have to pay 9 and 10 cents per pound 
the people of England obtain for 6 to 6^ cents per pound. 

Tlie tariff is equal to $9 or $10 on a barrel of sugar. This the con¬ 
sumer has to pay for the benefit of the few sugar-planters in Luuisiaua. 
The protectionist, rather than reduce the tariff on sugar to benefit the 
poor consumer, proposes to reduce the surplus revenue by taking the tax 
off of whisky and tobacco. The people of this country consume annu¬ 
ally 1,000,000 tons of sugar. 

Now, the Louisiana planters who are demanding this high tariff only 
produce about 8 per cent, of the sugar consumed in the country. The 
annual average value of the sugar crop in Louisiana is only about 26 
per cent, of the tariff the i)eople pay on the imports ol’ sugar. 

During the last fiscal year the value of sugar imported was $93,525,- 
732, upon which duties to the amount of $47,977,000 were collected. 
The history of sugar-planting in Louisiana shows that a high tariff has 
little or no influence in stimulating the production of sugar. Tlie 
largest crops have been raised when the tariff has been the lowest. The 
sugar-planters of Louisiana need no protection, as the following facts 
will show. 

The following extract is from a prize essay read before the Planters’ 
Association of Louisiana in 1883. If its statements are true, and we 
have no reason to doubt them, they prove that domestic sugar-growers 
are receiving greater returns from their crops than is obtained by any 
other class of agriculturists: 

RESOURCES OF THE SUGAR REGION. 

No agricultural product in any part of the world gives a return equal to a well- 
conducted sugar plantation. Hitherto it has required large capital to embark 
in this business, but since the e.stablishment of central factories in our State 
every cultivator has within his reach the means to become a sugar farmer and 
the certainty of obtaining a good price for his cane. Poor men in no other 
country have such opportunities as are here oUered, for by proper cultivation 
they are certain of securing from $80 to $100 per acre for their cane crop, and one 
man can cultivate from ten to fifteen acres in cane, besides raising corn and 
other supplies sufficient for his family, all on land which to-day can be pur¬ 
chased at from $5 to $20 per acre. This new feature in the sugar industry is des¬ 
tined to more than double our sugar product in five years, and under favorable 
legislative protection this industry in the near future will assumegrand propor¬ 
tions, for not one-half of the territory adapted to cane is as yet cultivated in this 
plant. It has been found that cane does remarkably well on the high lands, as 
proven in East Baton Rouge by sugar farmers who are growing wealthy with 
small mills; and cane pays well even in the sandy soil of the other Florida i)ar- 
ishes, where nourished by fertilizers. Recent important improvements in ma¬ 
chinery have greatly increased the sugar yield per ton of cane, and the refuse 
or bagasse, which a few years ago was a great burden to sugar-jilahters.has re¬ 
cently been utilized for fuel; but a better use for it will soon be found, for it 
makes the best paper stock, and will in a year or two be extensively employed 
for that purpo.^je. ’ In fact, paper barrels for sugar and molasses will soon take 
the place of the ancient wasteful and cumbei'some cypress hogsheads and bar¬ 
rels. 

An average duty of over 60 per cent, is maintained on sugar and 
kept at that excessive rate in obedience to the demands of the domestic 
sugar industry. 

it is claimed in the above paper that with proper cultivation $80 to 
$100 per acre is obtained from sugar. The tobacco crop of 1882 paid 
$64.32 per acre; hay, $11.44; potatoes, $43.89; corn, $11.94; wheat, 
$11.99; rye, $8.28; oats, $9.89; barley, $13.54; buckwheat, $9.49. 
These figures show conclusively that there is no necessity for a high 


12 


tariff* on sugar, and that as a crop it yields the producer six to eight 
times the return obtained from cereals. And yet the average rate of 
wages in the grain-growing States of the West and Northwest is from 
six to eight dollars per month greater than in Louisiana. Free sugar 
would still enable producers to get superb returns from their land as 
compared with grain-growers and giro to consumers a gift of |40,000,- 
000 . 

The people of this country could better afford to pay the Louisiana 
sugar-planter the value of his annual crop than to pay duties on the 
importation of foreign sugar amounting to $48,000,000. Even then the 
people Avould save over $30,000,000 per annum. 

The sugar-tax is an enormous fraud upon the people and it ought to 
be removed. There is not as much reason for protecting the sugar- 
planter as there is for protecting our Western farmers against taxes 
upon almost everything that is used by them. Foreign nations do not 
give us cloths, silks, wools, or sugar; but they are to be paid for in our 
agricultural products; there is no other way. All the specie in the 
country could not pay for one year’s imports—for 1883, $700,130,688. 
Not a yard of cloth comes into the country but what encourages Amer¬ 
ican labor, because some one has raised cotton, wheat, corn, pork, beef, 
and other products to pay for it. Under a high tariff agricultural prod¬ 
ucts will fall in price, and rise under a low tariff. This was true 
under the compromise tariff of Mr. Clay, from 1839 to 1842. As the 
duties came off agricultural products rose in price, and we increased 
our exports. Under the high tariff of 1843 our agricultural exports fell 
off and the price went down again. In 1846, under what is known as 
the Walker tariff, which was simply a revenue tariff, and the duties 
were ad valorem, the price of agricultural products rose and our ex¬ 
ports largely increased. The same result folio we 1 under the low hiriff 
from 1856 to 1861. 

This illustrates the simple rule that when we buy of others they will 
buy of us. The more we import the more we export. The dutiable 
imports for 1883 were in value nearly $500,000,000. The following 
table shows some of the yndncipal articles of import and their value: 


Live animals. 

Barley.. 

Buttons and button materials. 

Crude opium. 

Watches and watch materials. 

Coal, bituminous... 

Cotton cloth. 

Cotton knit floods... 

Clothing- and other cotton goods, 
Earthen, stone, and china ware.. 
Fancy articles, perfumeries, etc.., 

Hemps and substitutes for. 

Jute and sisal grass . 

Manufactures of flax, jute, &c. 

Fruits and nuts. 

Furs, dressed on skins. 

Pig-iron.. 

Tin plate or taggers’ tin. 

Various manufactures of tin. 

Precious stones. 

Leather. 

Gloves, kid and leather. 

Silk, dress and piece goods. 

Silk, clothing, laces, ribbons, &c... 

Brandy. 

Molasses. 

Sugar, Dutch standard in color..., 


^,513,629 
6,288,341 

3.599.323 
3,931,278 
2,221,703 
2, 240,260 
2,538,871 
7,941,381 

23,808,930 
6,969,923 
7,402,856 

4.576.324 
5,720,995. 

24,133,992 
17,407,607 
5,325,133 
5,745,999 
18,075,814 
13,875,693 
8,550,818 
7,228,409 
3,589,653 
16,821,441 
18,280,474 
2,246,526 
6,980,210 
87,774,898 





























13 


T^eaf-tobsicco. g 3j[2 913 

Cigars, cigarettes, and cheroots.. .. 3 a^s’ 770 

Wine, in casks.3’ 012’. 977 

Wine, in bottles. 5,207,345 

Lumber. 7 433 939 

Wool, unmanufactured. 11 ’ 343’ e . o’i 

Woolen cloth...12 922 52^1 

■ Women’s and children’s woolen goods. I7’095* 209 

Woolen goods, unspecified.. 8,’430,’553 


Total. 396,150,721 


These thirty-six headings embrace more than three-fourths of the 
dutiable commodities brought into this country. It will be observed 
that by far the greater portion are articles of prime necessity. Sugar, 
cotton goods, and cotton clothing, woolen goods and woolen clothing, 
manufactures of flax, tin, and manulactures of tin, iron, and manu¬ 
factures ot iron make up much the larger part of the goods upon which 
duties are imposed. These are articles indispensable in every house¬ 
hold in the land. These enter into the life of every human creature. 
The duty on these articles is from 40 to 50 per cent. It is not stating 
the case too strongly to say that on the six articles we have just named 
the laboring classes pay annually over 1100,000,000 tax to the Govern¬ 
ment, or $2 to each person, and $10 to each average family. This, of 
course, takes no account of the amount they jmy to protect home in¬ 
dustries which does not go into the Treasury. This amount is indefi¬ 
nite, but is variously estimated to reach three times the sum, or more 
than is paid to the Government (more nearly five times, or |50 per 
family); that is to say, $0 to each person, and $30 to each family in the 
United States. If this tax were levied direct on the people the present 
tariff would not stand a month. It fiills on them none the less surely 
and is much less equitably distributed than are /lirect taxes, but so 
disguised as to excite no general protest. It is only by discussion that 
the truth can be brought home to the people who bear the burdens. 

Under the Morrison bill wood, sawed lumber, coal, and salt are added 
the of free-list, and to these, in my judgment, there ought to be added 
wool, sugar, and many other articles of prime necessity. The effect of 
the present bill will be to reduce the present tariff about 15.74 per 
cent., as' estimated by the Ways and Means Committee, making about 
$31,000,000 reduction. This is something to be sure, and perhaps as 
much as ciin be obtained at this time under the circumstances. 

The bill under consideration does not propose to reduce the tariff in 
any material respect below that of the Morrill tariff of 1861. At that 
time that was the highest tariff known to our laws. 

Twenty-three years have elapsed since the adoption of that high pro¬ 
tective tariff. At that time it was thought necessary to make some 
excuse to the people for so exorbitant a tariff*. It was urged by the pro¬ 
tected class that their business was in its infancy and required protec¬ 
tion to keep it alive. Yet many of these infiint establishments had 
l>een in existence and flourishing and yielding large dividends for more 
than forty years. Now nearly a generation of protection has been added, 
and if there is any virtue in it certainly the infant ought to be of age 
now and no longer has the right to demand a subsidy or gratuity at the 
expense of the whole people. If the Morrison bill becomes a law the 
average tariff on the dutiable articles will be over 30 per cent. This 
certainly ought to be sufficient to satisfy all reasonable men. It gives 
the manufacturer 30 per cent, the advantage over the great mass of the 


I 













14 


citizens, but this protected and rapacious class still plead infancy and 
more protection. 

It is urged by the protectionist that the internal-revenue tax should 
be abolished. This is principally on whisky, beer, and tobacco, and 
yields a large amount of revenue, nearly $132,000,000 annually. If this 
revenue is taken off it would give the protectionist increased advantage 
for insisting that there shall be no reduction of the tariff, but rather an 
increase. Of course protectionists are in favor of abolishing the internal- 
revenue system. 

I am opposed to the abolition of the internal-revenue S 3 '^stem as ap¬ 
plied to whisky and tobacco. These articles are not necessaries. What¬ 
ever of this tax is paid is voluntary. No one need pay a dollar of this 
tax unless he choos&s; and the abstinence from the use of,these articles 
and, therefore, from the payment of this tax would always be to the 
advantage of the individual. 

It is estimated that our tariff and revenue laws will give $100,000,000 
more than is wanted and can be used by the Government under the 
law. What reason can be given for taking this large sum from the 
hard earnings of the people? The Democratic party have given their 
pledge to the people to reform the abuses in our tariff system, and, for 
one, I am for faithfully redeeming these pledges. 


/ 


I 





t 


L 


r 





r 


«■ 






. ^ 


I- * 


/ ■ / 





¥ 


• I 




% 








* 


i 

i 




I 




4 


4 


% 




» 


0 


✓ 


t 


♦ 


% 



T 




« 













V 


\ 


i 


f 

4 *« 


✓ 



• • % 

( 

si'T 

I 





4 




i 

* 


1 


* 





b- 





r 




»- 


f 


t 

t 


I 


« 












r 




■ 

f i 

'.i 



.» • p'. k 


( 






» 


J 




/ » 

( 


k ii 
* 








i • 


> 


« 



■V 


4 


1 




I . 


V 


> 


'a * 

j 

* 


t 


* 


1 


( 


j 


4 


• \ 

♦ 






% * 


f 


Soldiers’ Homes 


EEMARKS 

OF 

HON. R. M. MURRAY, OF OHIO. AND HON. P. V. DEUSTER, 
" OF WISCONSIN. 

In the House of Representatives, 

3Ionday, May 26, 1884. 


_ The House having under consideration a resolution authorizing an examina¬ 
tion of the management of the National Soldiers’ Homes for disabled volunteer 
soldiers— • 

Mr. ROSECRANS said: 

Mr. Speaker: I hope there will he no objection to the motion which 
I submit on the part of the Committee on Military Affairs, that the Com¬ 
mittee of the Whole House on the state of the Union be discharged 
from the further consideration of the preamble and resolutions in ref¬ 
erence to the national homes for disabled volunteer soldiers. 

The SPEAKER. The preamble and resolution will be read subject 
to objection. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Whereas experience hitherto shows a steady increase in the numbers as well 
as in the percentage of disease and death of the inmates of the national homes 
for disabled volunteers, which increase will probable continue for ten or fifteen 
years and will demand enlarged provision for the care and maintenance of dis¬ 
abled soldiers; and 

Whereas the board of managers of those homes, solicitous for the best possi¬ 
ble administration thereof, have repeatedly requested Congres.sional examina- 
ation of their system, and especially in view of eertain general and specific com¬ 
plaints which have reached the Committee on Military Affairs as to the workings 
and management of some of the homes, it is desirable, for guidance in future 
legislation, that Congress should have full and authentic information on these 
matters: 

Resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs be, and it is hereby, empow¬ 
ered to examine and report to this House upon the plan, practical workings, and 
management of the national homes for disabled volunteer soldiers, and to rec¬ 
ommend what, if any, legislation appears necessary to insure the most effect¬ 
ive, economical, and humane application of the funds annually appropriated 
by Congress to this great beneficence ; and for that purpose the committee is 
authorized to sit during the sessions of the House, to examine by subcommittee 
such of the homes as it may deem necessary, to send for persons and papers, to 
administer oaths, to employ such clerical assistance as may be required for this 
work, and to meet during the recess of Congress; all the necessary expenses to 
be paid out of the contingent fund of the House upon the certificate of the chair¬ 
man of the committee. 

Mr. DEUSTER said: 

Mr. Speaker: I heartily approve of the resolution presented by the 
honorable gentleman from California. Sir, the district I have the honor 
to represent on this floor has within its boundaries one of these grand 





9 


institutions, a fitting memorial of the generosity and gratitude of the 
American people in caring for those gallant men who sacrificed the best 
years of their manhood that the nation might survive and who were 
maimed upon the field of carnage, or broken down by the rigors of the 
camp and the march. The white-winged messenger of peace that at last 
settled down upon a Union cemented together with their blood, as it was 
bom in the smoke of battle, brought joy and happiness to the people, 
and returned the soldiers, or a vast number of them, to the pursuits of 
peace, broken in health, crippled and prematurely aged, to gain a liveli¬ 
hood in competition with vigorous youth and sturdy manhood, grown to 
those estates while they were breaking down beneath a southern sun 
and exposure to the elements of war. 

A generous and grateful people could not do less than they have done 
in erecting palatial buildings and laying out beautiful grounds to at 
least make pleasant the pathway of the grave for these men to whom 
we all of us owe so much. It was their right to demand and our duty 
under the unwritten law of humanity to comply. And yet, sir, with 
all this outward show of beauty set forth in massive piles of brick and 
mortar, wrought out into the highest excellence of architectural art, and 
surrounded with beautiful lawns, from which roses put forth their fra¬ 
grance and blush in the noonday sun, 9 ,nd with shady groves and sparkling 
fountains, it has been claimed that the ‘ ‘ Soldiers’ Home ’ ’ is a misnomer, 
that the outward show of beauty is often but a covering for the inward 
misery and despair. The complaints sent out by the inmates of ill- 
treatment and hardships endured are numerous if they be but partly true. 
I speak advisedly on this subject, and have only to put in evidence the 
letters addressed to me by inmates of the different homes to justify my 
assertions. It is not in the province of things that so large a body of 
men should be gathered beneath one roof without some grumblers, but 
the complaints are not confined to the few but extend to the many. 

In my judgment the evils complained of are more the result of the 
‘ ‘ rules and regulations ’ ’ governing these institutions than the fault of the 
officers in charge. The discipline exacted is that of the regular Army, 
Avith all its arbitrary rules and articles, which robs the “home ” of its 
comforts and reduces the inmate to the level of a cringing creature, ut¬ 
terly dependent, helpless, and devoid of individuality or manhood, a 
mere machine, in fact, to be started and stopped at the order of a supe¬ 
rior officer. Men whom the world has beaten in the great struggle, or 
who have beaten themselves by yielding to temptations until unfit for 
anything else, accept the regular Army as the dernier ressort, the last 
step in human degradation, as a means of avoiding starvation. And yet, 
sir, the experiment is going forward of trying to make a home under 
the same system that governs in the regular Army, a system the only 
tendency of which is to degrade. 

The responsibility for ill-treatment complained of by many of these 
crippled, diseased invalids who are slowly tottering toward the grave 
should be placed, to a great extent, to a class that by training from boy¬ 
hood and associations has become estranged from the mass of the peo¬ 
ple from whom it was taken to be educated at the country’s expense 
at a military academy, and that has thus lost that feeling of a common 
equality. They forget that they are no longer to terrorize poor regu¬ 
lars, but simply to superintend men and citizens who are their equals 
before the law. I demand a rigorous investigation of the management 
of these homes. We owe it to these invalids, who sacrificed their all 
for our common country. Their stay with us is shortening with every 




3 








■i /' 




day, and as I said on another occasion, before long they will have gone 
to that home which is governed by a jNIerciful Father, Avhich needs no 
arbitrary rules and regulations save mercy and justice for its inmates. 


^Ir. MURRAY said: 

Mr. Speakek: Many of my people are interested in the passage of 
this resolution; but, sir, aside from a local desire it is of national im¬ 
portance that this resolution should pass. 

This Government has been to great expense in furnishing homes for 
its disabled soldiers, and bills are now pending in this House for the 
establishment of several more of these institutions. It is of great im¬ 
portance that a careful investigation of the manner in which these 
homes are conducted should be made by a committee from this House, 
in order that errors of management, if any, may be made known and 
corrected. It may be that no improvement is needed; but certain com¬ 
plaints have been made against the management of the home situated 
near the city of Dayton, Ohio. This home, known as the central 
branch, has over 4,000 inmates, or almost as many as all the other 
homes combined. 

For years complaints have been made against the management of this 
home, and so numerous were the grievances that the National Board of 
]Managers of the Soldiers’ Homes deemed it necessary to order an in¬ 
vestigation last year. This investigation was made and changes in the 
management recommended, but the complaints are now more numer¬ 
ous than ever; not from the inmates alone, although a great many rea¬ 
sonable complaints have been made to me from the inmates of this home 
to the effect that they are not treated kindly, that the discipline is so 
severe and under such constant enforcement as to be even more irksome 
than when they were in the full vigor of their manhood, fighting the 
battles of their country in the trenches and on the tented field, when 
severe discipline was an absolute necessity. The men have grown old 
and weak, borne down by their age, sorrows, and afflictions, and no rea¬ 
sonable man can think that these crippled children of the Republic 
should be treated as if they were in a garrison. 

A short time ago I received a petition signed by a large number of 
reliable and responsible citizens of Montgomery County, Ohio, worded 
as follows: 


The undersigned, citizens of Montgomery County and city of Dayton, in the 
State of Ohio, respectfully request you to urge such action upon the part of Con¬ 
gress as Avill bring about a change in the governorship of the National Military 
Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers at this place. The conduct of the governor 
is, and has been in many cases, tyrannical, and we might say inhuman, to the 
men under his control. He has refused admittance, even temporarily, to many 
wounded and disabled soldiei-s, who are thus thrown upon the public charity or 
have become inmates of the county infirmary, now crowded with men who 
by right ought to be in the home. He has inflicted unusual and severe punish¬ 
ment upon the inmates, and for small and trivial offenses that should be over¬ 
looked in old soldiers who have been wounded and disabled in the service and 
are of infirm health and mind. Blind and insane men, for expressing opinions, 
for Avhich they are wholly irresponsible, have been dishonorably discharged 
from the home and are now a burden upon our charitable institutions. 


I might read a great many other appeals that I have received, but 
the one given is sufficient to show the general character of the com¬ 
plaints made. One of the directors of the county infirmary of Mont¬ 
gomery County wrote me not long ago as follows: 

There are now twenty-three inmates of the soldiers’ home in this county in the 
county infirmary who have been discharged from the home, and nearly all of' 
them are either insane or blind, and dependent upon this county for their sup¬ 
port. 




4 


Governor Patrick was a regular Army officer and accustomed to the 
rigorous discipline of the regular Army, but the 4,000 men over which 
he has control were of the volunteer army and unused to that kind of 
discipline. Being A^olunteer soldiers it would be a fair request that 
some one should be chosen to govern them from the volunteer army 
rather than the regular Army even if there was no other cause of com¬ 
plaint. 

But, sir, these homes were established in order that the crix^pled and 
disabled soldiers of this country might have a place to spend the last of 
life in peace and comfort. Money has been extravagantly expended, 
and if these men are not comfortable and happy it certainly is not the 
fault of a generous government. Grand and expensive places have been 
provided, and there is hardly anything more beautiful on this continent 
than the home and grounds of the central branch at Dayton. But what 
are beautiful grounds or a comfortable place to sleep, or even plenty of 
substantial and good food, when you are ruled with an iron hand that 
wipes away all sense of liberty, that keeps you so subdued that you 
hardly dare call your soul your own, that when you lie down at night 
or wake at dawn the thought is constantly uppermost that you know 
not what punishment is imminent or about to fall upon your defense¬ 
less head. 

The men who are obliged to live in our national homes are not in its 
best sense subjects of governmental charity. By their sightless eyes, 
their maimed and broken bodies, their lost limbs, their shattered con¬ 
stitutions, and dethroned reason, they present a long line of melan¬ 
choly witnesses to the fact that they have done more for their country 
than their country can ever do for them. To offer these people a home, 
even if it be surrounded with all the beauty of Eden’s garden, and is 
not governed in the spirit of kindness, is like asking for bread and get¬ 
ting a stone. The charges made may be to some extent groundless, but 
the complaints are so numerous and from such a variety of sources that 
I hope the resolution will pass without opposition. 

The SPEAKER. Is there objection? 

There was no objection, and the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union were discharged from the further consideration 
of the preamble and resolution, and they were adopted. 

IMr. ROSECR ANS moved to reconsider the vote by which the preamble 
and resolution were adopted; and also moved that the motion to recon¬ 
sider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

C 


\ 










/ 








V. 

4 





. 


I 



i • 



< 


■i 


t 


t 


^ ' A 







1 




' w\ 







I 









4 


































